#78400 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 7:54 pm Subject: Re: eCard from India - Benares buddhistmedi... Hello Herman, - It is allright to use what I wrote for further discussion about causalities. The cliche 'you reap what you sow' does not tell much about kamma-vipaka, however. >Herman: I know you are only joking. And I'm sorry to use your good-natured post to highlight how an incorrect grasp of causality leads to the most ignorant of reactions. The following, especially the excerpt between the stars, hopefully shows how anyone who uses kamma to justify what has just happened, is in dire need of a check-up from the neck up. T: I am surprised that your interpretation is quite different from mine, after reading the news story on "Killer cow put to death From correspondents in Phnom Penh". I think the relatives of the dead motorist (died in the accident caused by the cow) were very kind to the cow owner, because they believed that the dead man had his own karma. They apparently were not "ignorant". The cow owner killed his cow to avoid more trouble in the future and he could sell the meat too. IMO the cow owner was greedy, cruel, and insensitive. That's all I can read from the story. Tep === > #78401 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 8:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (7) sarahprocter... Dear Han, Larry & all, --- han tun wrote: > Heated argument followed. I insisted *one of the > three*; they insisted the above-mentioned four > consciousness are immediately followed by > *equanimity*. ... S: Just for clarification, seeing, hearing, smeeling and tasting consciousness are *accompanied* by neutral feeling. This was the point. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/40495 The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV 128. <...> 'Equanimity' has the characteristic of being felt as neutral. Its function is not to intensify or wither associated states much. It is manifested as peacefulness. Its proximate cause is consciousness without happiness.56 This is the section of the detailed explanation dealing with the feeling aggregate. ---------------------------- <..> Note 56. 'Pleasure and pain respectively gratify and afflict by acting in one way on the body and in another way on the mind, but not so equanimity, which is why the latter is described as of one class. 'Just as, when a man places a piece of cottonwool on an anvil and strikes it with an iron hammer, and his hammer goes right through the cotton and hits the anvil, the violence of the blow is great, so too because the violence of the impact's blow is great, body-consciousness is accompanied by pleasure when the object is a desirable or desirable-neutral one, and by pain when the object is an undesirable or undesirable-neutral one. [It is the impact of the primary matter (tangible object) on the primaries of the body.] 'Herein, though profitable-resultant and unprofitable-resultant consciousness discriminated according to the desirable and undesirable might logically be associated with pleasure and pain, nevertheless the eight kinds of consciousness that have the eye, etc., as their support (34)-(37) and (50)-(53) are invariably associated only with equanimity, because of the gentleness of the impact's blow in the case of two instances of derived matter, like that of two pieces of cotton wool' (Pm.482). For simile see DhsA. 263. .... > > Finally, I was shown the book, A Comprehensive Manual > of Abhidhamma. Then, I realized that they were right, > and I was wrong. > > Six out of seven akusala-vipaaka-cittas (unwholesome > resultant consciousness) are accompanied by equanimity > (upekkhaa). Only body-consciousness is accompanied by > pain (dukkha). > > Six out of eight kusala-vipaaka-cittas (wholesome > resultant consciousness) are accompanied by equanimity > (upekkhaa). Only body-consciousness is accompanied by > pleasure (sukha), and investigating consciousness by > joy (somanassa). .... S: Yes, see CMA, ch1, Rootless Consciousness (Ahetukacittaani) As it says, eye-consciousness etc is accompanied by equanimity. The Guide note stresses again that even though the object (visible object etc) is desirable or undesirable, "the impact of the object on the first four sense faculties is weak and thus the associated feeling is neutral, i.e. equanimity. But in the case of unwholesome [S:or wholesome]-resultant body-consciousness, the object's impact on the body faculty is strong, and thus the accompanying feeling is bodily pain (dukkha)[S: or bodily pleasant feeling (sukha)]." .... > ------------------------------ > > Then there was a discussion on the following points > (as noted by Sarah). > - the importance of understanding seeing and visible > object. We think we see someone and are therefore > attached/angry with someone. But when we appreciate > and understand more and more that only visible object > is seen, it conditions more metta, less dosa, for > example. Are you angry with seeing? With hearing? > > Here, I would like to request Sarah to kindly expand > on the short points noted by her, if she deems it > necessary. ... S: The point is simply that when we angry with or attached to someone, there is no metta, no kindness at all. We think we see and hear people all the time, but by appreciating that seeing only sees visible object for an instant (with neutral feeling) and that hearing only hears sound for an instant too, there really isn't anyone to be angry with or attached to. Gradually, through the development of understanding of realities therefore, there are actually conditions for less anger, less attachment and a greater development of the brahma viharas. Metta with right understanding of realities is far higher than metta without such an understanding. The brahma viharas developed by the ariyans is therefore of a higher degree than those developed by worldlings. Finally, of course the Buddha's metta, karuna, mudita and upekkha are thereby incomparable on account of the great wisdom. ... > This is the END of my Report on the Meeting at the > Foundation, for the Session which I participated. > I thank very much the DSG members for giving their > time and efforts to read and discuss on my Report. ..... S: Excellent job, Han. Anumodana!! We'll look forward to the next set after we visit again in the New Year:-) Metta, Sarah ====== #78402 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 9:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (7) sarahprocter... Hi Larry, Nice to talk to you!! --- LBIDD@... wrote: > Larry: I think the key concept is "with". Neutral feeling is said to > arise _with_ tasting consciousness, etc. There is no "with" in > satipattana. Perhaps Sarah could respond to that as well. .... S: Every single citta is accompanied by a feeling. I think your point about satipatthana is that there is only ever one dhamma as object of satipatthana. This is correct, but there's no conflict. No citta (and accompanying cetasikas) experience more than one object. For example, if a citta arising now is accompanied by awareness, by feeling, by many other sobhana cetasikas, it may be experiencing visible object or seeing or feeling or hardness or any other dhamma appearing. Just one citta and one object at a time, but many cetasikas accompanying the citta to 'taste' and experience that object in various ways, supporting and conditioning the citta. Let me know if I've missed the point as this is a rushed note and I haven't read the posts thoroughly yet. Metta, Sarah ============== #78403 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 9:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (7) lbidd2 Hi Sarah, "Note 56. 'Pleasure and pain respectively gratify and afflict by acting in one way on the body and in another way on the mind,..." Larry: Another point on this topic: S. N. Goenka, who has spent a great deal of time investigating feeling, is of the view that all pleasure and pain are bodily pleasure and pain only. I am inclined to agree. What is your experience? Larry #78404 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 9:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (7) lbidd2 Hi again Sarah, Sarah: "Every single citta is accompanied by a feeling. I think your point about satipatthana is that there is only ever one dhamma as object of satipatthana. This is correct, but there's no conflict. No citta (and accompanying cetasikas) experience more than one object." Larry: My point was that satipatthana cannot know co-arising dhammas as such. So whatever feeling accompanies contact is irrelevant to satipatthana. Larry #78405 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 9:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (7) sarahprocter... Hi Larry, --- LBIDD@... wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > "Note 56. 'Pleasure and pain respectively gratify and afflict by acting > in one way on the body and in another way on the mind,..." > > Larry: Another point on this topic: S. N. Goenka, who has spent a great > deal of time investigating feeling, is of the view that all pleasure and > pain are bodily pleasure and pain only. I am inclined to agree. What is > your experience? ... S: My experience is that Goenka's comments on feelings (vedana) have always been very confused. The rupas (e.g. temperature, solidity, motion as experienced through the body-sense) get mixed up with the namas (e.g vedana) for a start. Let me repeat some comments I've made before: Just to clarify, ALL feelings are namas (vedana khandha). Those referred to as ‘physical’ refer to feelings accompanying cittas experiencing their objects through the body-sense. So if you put your hand in ice cold water, there will be unpleasant bodily feeling (dukkha vedana) accompanying the citta of body sense consciousness (vipaka citta) which experiences the coldness (a rupa). This will usually be followed by unhappy mental feeling (domanassa, another kind of vedana) accompanying cittas in the javana cittas (in the sense and mind door processes). Just to summarise the five kinds of feeling; a) pleasant bodily feeling (sukha) b) painful bodily feeling (dukkha) c) happy feeling (somanassa) d) unhappy feeling (domanassa) e) indifferent feeling (upekkha) When there is kaya-vinnana (body-consciousness), this is kusala or akusala vipaka (wholesome or unwholesome result of kamma) and it is accompanied by either sukha or dukkha respectively. There is no lobha or dosa at these moments of pleasant or painful bodily feeling. The kaya-vinnana is very short - just a moment of vipaka only. This citta may, however, be followed by kusala or akusala cittas (wholesome or unwholesome consciousness) and these will be accompanied by somanassa, domanassa or upekkha. Lots more under 'Feelings - Bodily and Mental' in U.P. let's keep talking.... Metta, Sarah ======== #78406 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 10:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (7) sarahprocter... Hi Larry, --- LBIDD@... wrote: > Larry: My point was that satipatthana cannot know co-arising dhammas as > such. So whatever feeling accompanies contact is irrelevant to > satipatthana. .... S: OK, I understand your point. "Satipatthana cannot know co-arising dhammas as such." Yes, many of the intricacies could only ever have been discovered, known and taught by a Buddha. (This is one reason the Abhidhamma could only ever have been taught by the Buddha.) In a sense, I agree with you too that it is irrelevant what feeling accompanies seeing consciousness and phassa cetasika. (Remember there is also phassa(contact) with each citta, so phassa is accompanied by different kinds of feelings.) If there is awareness, it is aware of the feeling as it is regardless. However, I think it's helpful to understand, even theoretically, that it is neutral feeling that accompanies seeing consciousness. We attach such great importance to what is seen and usually are under the delusion that we have pleasant and unpleasant experiences whilst seeing different objects. For example, we see something on T.V. which is disturbing - let's say starving children in Africa or monks being beaten in Burma. What is actually seen, however, is only ever visible object and this is seen with neutral feeling. All the stories, all the unpleasant feelings are experienced by subsequent mind-door processes. As the panna (rt understanding) becomes sharper and clearer, to the point that it penetrates the arising and falling away of dhammas, I think that it might then be evident by direct knowledge that it is only neutral feeling accompanying the seeing consciousness. For us, meanwhile, we take this on trust as it's impossible to directly know the precise details for ourselves. This trust (saddha) is developed as right understanding grows and begins to verify what has been taught. Metta, Sarah ======== #78407 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 10:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) sarahprocter... Hi Dieter, (Ken H & all), --- Dieter Möller wrote: > Tep indicated already a general interest for the clarification of the > issue, and therefore believe , it may be the best if you would be so > kind and present the 'case' > by quotations/sources , i.e. both in respect to statements of the > Venerable as showing its contradiction with the Buddha Dhamma for the > members to see for themselves. .... S: Dieter, while you're waiting for any further clarifications, you may find it helpful/interesting to take a look at these posts in U.P. (the numbers refer to past posts #): >Anatta3 -ATI, No-self?, Non-self?, Not-self? Thanissaro Bhikkhu's take.. 34543, 34774, 34782, 37725, 64891, 69792, 69824, 70888, 70915, 74918, 75388, 75509 < .... S: I'm sure Ken H, Scott and others will be glad to take up any further discussion of any of them. Metta, Sarah ======= #78408 From: Ken O Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 10:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) ashkenn2k Hi Alex to simply, right understanding is knowing anicca, dukkha, anatta. Cheers Ken O #78409 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 10:52 pm Subject: Gandhabba/Gandhabba/Gandhabba reverendagga... Hi Everybody! It's me again saying hello! Oh Gosh! There has been such resistance from some concerning my perspective on Gandhabba and i certanly can understand why! We can debate weather something is popular or not or why it is or is not a popular belief, that though is irrelivent to the issue at hand. Concerning Ven. Dhammanando's "clear comment's in response to this" He makes mention of "that REBIRTH (or relinking) consciousness so called because it LINKS TOGETHER the two consecutive existences." If we understand that hopefully we can LEARN from our experience, then yes we can clearly see this as an evolving process. With all due respect to B. Bodhi i would not concur with him on this matter regarding the purpose of the simile. Let me explain: A "Gandhabba fire" wound then be supported by the ... Thank You ALL! May the Buddha's, Deva,and Angel's bless you all! bhikkhu aggacitto/aka reverend aggacitto #78410 From: Ken O Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 11:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A better way to discourage meditators! ashkenn2k Hi Colette > colette: I really do not believe that a person can "eradicate" any > such "defilements". Defilements, IMO, are nothing more than degrees > of an opinion or a thought. Suppression is a useless operation > since suppression causes them to fester and grow themselves, as if in a petri dish. Put those defilements out in the open, deal with them as they should be dealt with, they are emptyand without substance. > ---------------------------------- KO: One could only become enlighted only when defilements are eradicated or destroy. See AN III, 100 according to Numercial Discourses of the Buddha by B Bodhi. If he wishes "by the destruction of that taints, may I in this very life enter and dwell in the taintless liberation of the mind, liberation by wisdowm, realizing it for myself with direct knowledge" Suppression is for worldings that achieve the base of neither preception nor non preception. Eradication is meant for the Noble ones. There is certain degree of panna needed for worldings also because all jhanas must be accompanied by panna. That panna is based to my personal opinion the understanding of ancia and dukkha as they are visible or could be experience and seen. they were already known even before Buddha came. Only a Buddha can teach anatta and only through understanding of anatta can taints be destroyed Cheers Ken O #78411 From: Elaine Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 11:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Development of understanding - to Nina shennieca Hi Tep (and Nina),- Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. It gives me the opportunity to learn the Dhamma from you. :-)) -------------------- Tep: Then it becomes complicated when I try to understand why concepts do not have the three characteristics of the paramattha dhammas, etc. Elaine: The topic of pannati (concept, conventional reality) is too difficult for me but I’ll give my 2 cents-worth opinion, as usual. :-)) I’m quite sure that pannati have the characteristic of anicca. But I’m not sure whether pannati have characteristics of dukkha and anatta. My logic thinking is that, if a person a concept, and a person has these 3 characteristics of dukkha, anicca and anatta, shouldn't that become a concept will have these 3 characteristics as well? What explanations do Abhidhammikas give to the question, why concept does not have the 3 characteristics? How do concepts fit into sabbe sankhara and sabbe dhamma? Sabbe sankhara anicca (all formations are impermanent) Sabbe sankhara dukkha (all formations are suffering) Sabbe dhamma anatta (all things are not-self) Why aren't pannati (concepts) included in the sankhara or the dhamma? (shrug) Tep, instead of answering your questions, I gave you more questions instead!! :D I hope Nina and anyone knowledgeable can help us with it. Hopefully the answers will be in plain conventional english that is easily understandable. :-)) ------------------------ Tep: What do you think is the object (or objects ?) of the right understanding (samma-ditthi) above? Immediately, I am confused. But when I do not think about an object of the right understanding, I am clear and have no trouble understanding the right understanding. Elaine: The object of right understanding? What object? You mean what are the "things" that we understand when we attain right understanding? When we attain right understanding, we will finally understand why we suffer. We suffer because we don’t 'see' and don’t understand anicca, dukkha and anatta. If a person understands these 3 characteristics with ‘direct knowledge’, s/he won’t suffer anymore, s/he has attained Nibbana. I also think with right understanding, a person can finally realize what are conventional realities and what are ultimate realities. Are these the "objects" that you confused with? ---------------------- Tep: By saying that understanding is "never lost", and that "it can arise again and again and thus it is accumulated. It grows" seems to contradict the dhamma characteristics, anicca and anata. Don't you think so, too ? Elaine: Yes. I think Nina did not really mean to say that panna is a permanent thing that accumulates. It must be some typo mistake. She has so many e-mails to reply to, I have to empathize with her. Let’s wait for her reply. [Unless there is a storehouse where panna is accumulated?] ------------------------ Tep Sastri wrote: Hi Elaine (and Nina), - I have a few thoughts to share with you, after reading your conversation with Nina (it is partly shown below). 1. Abhidhammikas tend to focus on concepts versus realities and objects of satipatthana. And when they talk about right understanding, it often means 'pa~n~na'. Then it becomes comlicated when I try to understand why concepts do not have the three characteristics of the paramattha dhammas, etc. > Elaine: (1) How is right understanding developed? >Nina: We have to know what right understanding is, what its object. Usually we live in the world of conventional realities, such as person, tree, table. But these are just concepts we can think of. >Elaine: On Right Understanding: And what, O bhikkhus, is right understanding? To understand suffering, to understand the origination of suffering, to understand extinction of suffering, to understand the path leading to the extinction of suffering; this is called right understanding. T: What do you think is the object (or objects ?) of the right understanding (samma-ditthi) above? Immediately, I am confused. But when I do not think about an object of the right understanding, I am clear and have no trouble understanding the right understanding. 2. I appreciate the reminder that 'pa~n~na' is the right wisdom of the Path and that it is the sum of right view(samma-ditthi, or right understanding) and right thought(samma-sankappa, or right resolve). This important truth is often forgotten when we talk about 'right view', 'right understanding', and wisdom' as separate issues. We need to bring these dhammas together to understand them as the "factors" of the Path -- i.e. simulataneously seeing the forest and the trees. It has been stated often by DSG abhidhammikas that pa~n~na is a cetasika, and as such it is an ultimate reality. So it is a conditioned reality that rises and falls away quickly. As an ultimate reality pa~n~na is anicca, and anatta. Therefore, it does not seem to make sense for pa~n~na to "grow and grow and accumulate" like Nina said in the following dialogue with you. Or, have I missed something? > E:(2) How can pa~n~naa be accumulated? > N: One moment of understanding arises and then falls away. It is never lost, there are now conditions that it can arise again and again and thus it is accumulated. It grows. We can compare this with the situation of a child who learns different things at school. Its knowledge develops more and more until it is mature. We can compare this with the situation of a child who learns different things at school. Its knowledge develops more and more until it is mature. ...................... T: By saying that understanding is "never lost", and that "it can arise again and again and thus it is accumulated. It grows" seems to contradict the dhamma characteristics, anicca and anata. Don't you think so, too ? Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Elaine wrote: > > Hi Nina, > > Thank you for taking the time to reply to my questions. I appreciate it. > > #78412 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 12:30 am Subject: Gandhabba /Gandhabba/Gandhabba /to futher clarify,in case of a misunderstanding reverendagga... Hi Again! i just wanted to make sure there is no misunderstanding regarding the ANALOGY i was making,"a Gandhabba fire... The point is this,the simile under discussion i would apparently say is to demonstrate an illustration of the fact that the REBIRTH process is fueled by the fire of ignorance,desire,and craving. If any one can suggest that the meaning of this simile is something else,i would contend it could only be a matter of wishful thinking convient to their perspective.How unfortunate for such a perspective that the relinking of consciousness must be addressed.Not linking mind you, but RELINKING. If the aggreates are just a so coinsidently happening to just be a meeting and arising(why hello there! so happy to meet you again!) why then the RELINKING?Any sort of Gandhabba as the kammic "Glue" or anything else for that matter would be unnessesary. Consciousness either exists or not.Either it is being "relinked" or not.Don't call it Gandhabba if you wish.Don't call it a soul if you want.Don't call it the "mind made body" if you insist! Call it what you want or better yet ignore it if you would like. Thank you ALL! May the Buddha's,Deva,and Angel's Bless ALL of you ! bhikkhu aggacitto/aka reverend aggacitto #78413 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 12:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma, Suttas & Meditation sarahprocter... Hi Alex, You wrote in #78003: --- Alex wrote: > I keep asking myself, are defilements (craving for existence, lack of > sense restrain for the mental consiousness) keeping me off the > cushion and at the table? It is hard for me to stop intellectualizing > and reading Dhamma and about Dhamma... I am really having a tough > time with this (meditation & study fighting for time)... .... S: Regardless of whether you are on the cushion or at the table reading Dhamma, there are only ever the present conditioned dhammas to be known. In other words, if we're not where we think we should be now or following a different activity from the one we think we should be doing, the reality is just the thinking about it, the confusion and aversion, the seeing and hearing (just like the seeing and hearing at any other time). The development of sati-sampajanna has to be with detachment from what is conditioned already. .... > > After all, how many people in Buddha's time mastered Abhidhamma first > and then Meditation from which they've gained Arahatship? The Suttas > are of course a must, since they contain deep meditation instructions > (I like girimananda sutta a lot). But hundreds if not thousands of > pages of AP??? ... S: Has anyone ever suggested to you that "mastering hundreds if not thousands of pages of AP" is the Path? As for Meditation, let's consider what satipatthana bhavana is. The past has gone, the future hasn't come. There is just the experience through one door-way only now at a time. These are the worlds to be known. So there can be awareness of a dhamma appearing now, not at any other time, not in any other position. Abhidhamma just refers to these present dhammas such as seeing consciousness, visible object and so on. .... > Any comments, suggestions, opinions on this matter? ... S: I've given some comments. Let me know how they sound to you. If we always think in terms of 'position' (a concept) or special practice, we'll never understand conditioned dhammas. Metta, Sarah ======= #78414 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma, Suttas & Meditation dcwijeratna Dear Sarah, Thank you very much for your reply. I would kindly request you to re-read the following, which you yourself has quoted. --- DC Wijeratna wrote: > What I give below may be considered as "vohaara dhamma." That is agreed > by people who study "History of Buddhism. Mine is not a direct response > as such. I am giving an "opinion" but not a personal one. It is what is > considered as knowledge by the world. ................................ DC: It only says that the information I present is what is considered as knowledge by the world. Your response to my giving you that information is given below. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>"S: You then give a long list of so called facts. Some are quite erroneous, I believe, such as the one suggesting that the Abhidhamma Pitaka only came to light at the third council, the first one which implies Dhamma-Vinaya only refers to suttanta and Vinaya, the 'conclusive' evidence that Abhidhamma is a later 'creation' based on the fact that the Theravada Abhidhamma is different from the Saravastivada and Sariputta Abhidhamma-sastra versions. You also suggest that in Sri Lanka no one other that scholar monks had any use for texts other than Dhp, Jataka and their commentaries. I've certainly met many, many people in your country with a far greater knowledge and interest than you give them credit for. At the end, the only references you mention (without any details) are 'Encyclopedia of Buddhism' and 'Sri Lanka Government'! Does this mean that the Sri Lanka Government denies the validity and word of the earliest (I believe) historical chronical in Sri Lanka, the Mahavamsa and the ancient commentaries written and preserved in Sri Lanka? What are the reputable sources your sources rely on? Just one would be interesting to study. We have quite a few historical texts about the Pali Canon in addition to the some of these commentaries, so it's easy to check. .............................. DC: I have no wish to argue with you that is not our way of discussion. We have been brought up and educated in a way. That is why I didn't answer your first e-m. You reminded me that I had not replied your post. Even then I asked you, whether I can communicate with you privately. But you said no, reply to the DSG. Ok, even then I did not want to argue; that is why the preamble to my response. Even now I do not wish to argue. There are techincal reason for that also. I shall point out those. 1. You start with the words "I believe ..." Beliefs are private to oneself. By definition, to believe is to consider something to be true without evidence. And when I gave you some information about facts or knowledge, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, based on your own beleifs you say all that is wrong. No problem for me, thank you for exposing your views. 2. Regarding the scholars, let me clarify a bit. I think the context was Buddhist tradition. So the idea behind my statement was that these abstruse, abstract, dry and meaningless, an purposeless catalogues were the works of non-ariyan monks-who codified them. If you wish to convince yourself just have a look at the Yamaka. I am sorry, if I have didn't make myself clear. 3. You wrote: "I've certainly met many, many people in your country with a far greater knowledge and interest than you give them credit for." DC: This response of your is really not relevant to the question of the time of the origin of the Abhidhamma Pi.taka. In logical discussions such arguments have no validity. I give you little information about myself. I was born, bred, educated in two Sri Lankan Universities and lived in this country for full 63 years plus a little. 4. Re. References. DC: I wasn't writing an article to a peer-reviewed journal. I was passing on some information. If you want to verify that you can start with the Encyclopedia I mentioned or please forget about it. 5. You wrote: Does this mean that the Sri Lanka Government denies the validity and word of the earliest (I believe) historical chronical in Sri Lanka, the Mahavamsa and the ancient commentaries written and preserved in Sri Lanka? DC: I am sorry Sarah. I really don't know the position of the Government of Sri Lanka on this matter. That you need to find out from them? But one thing I can assure you, they will have a problem and will appoint a commission of inquiry into the matter the report of which will never come out. Please strike out the word 'assure' and insert 'likely'; How can I assure you? My own opinion of Mahaavamsa is: I of course don't believe every word of it--for example that our great-great-great grand father was a lion. Or that Vijaya landed in this country on the day of Mahaaparinibbaan. Do you believe them? ============ >>>>>>>>>>>>Sarah: A) Atthasalini (commentary to the Dhammasangani) , Introductory discourse (PTS transl): ........." DC: This is what you believe. So you can keep on believing it. B) G.P. Malalasekera, 'The Pali Literature of Ceylon': DC: Prof. G.P. Malalasekera, was the Founder Editor-in-Chief of the Encyclopedia I mentioned. S: In other words, it is erroneous I believe to say that Dhamma Vinaya just refers to suttas given by the Buddha and the Vinaya. It is also erroneous to say that there was no mention of Abhidhamma Pitaka until the 3rd Council and that the 84,000 parts of the Teachings rehearsed at the Frist Council excluded all Abhidhamma and commentarial- nature Dhamma.<<<<<<<<< ................................. DC: You again say, "I believe". Your belief system is very clear to me now. And your belief is so strong, you refuse to see any evidence when it is presented. We normally tend to read what others have said before we form an opinion on any matter especially before undertaking research on our own. Our teacher's have told us so. Otherwise, you will be able to learn very little. May be back to the stone age. We don't try to study principles of thermodynamics before getting into a car to go wherever we wish to go. Dear Sarah, I joined the DSG miseld by the word "dhammastudy group". When I joined I was quite pleased somebody started the Pali Course. The style of discussion in the DSG is little bit difficult for me to get used to. I don't even know whether there is any consensus on what you refer to by the word Dhamma. I think I mentioned earlier, we conduct discussions in a friendly manner, and our discussions are based on what the world considers as facts. So, Sarah, I am sorry to disappoint you regarding this, "Again, I look forward to examining just one of your sources carefully with you." In the future I shall not take part in any discussion of the DSG. However, if any member writes to me on any matter, including Abhidhamma, I shall give them what is the position accepted in the world of scholars. If I can't give it myself, I have access to sufficient number of people, considered by the world as authorities on the subjects concerned; I can get their help to clarify. I will not keep on arguing, I have nothing to sell, I have no micchaa-d.t.thi of mine to foster on others. And the Dhamma for me is not something to keep arguing about. I am a simple follower of the Buddha. The Uttariitara, asamasama stthaa of mine, "Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa!" I don't expect a response to this. Nor will I reply as mentioned above. Sukhii hotu, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #78415 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:02 am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 202 and Tiika. nilovg Intro: in this section the Visuddhimagga elaborates more on the fact that the rebirth-consciousness conditions naama/ruupa. It explains how this can be known and refers to the Dhammasa”ngani. --------- Text Vis.202: Here it may be asked: 'But how is it to be known that the mentality-materiality of rebirth-linking has consciousness as its condition?' From the Suttas and from logic. For in the Suttas it is established in many places that feeling, etc., have consciousness as condition in the way beginning 'States with parallel occurrence through consciousness' (Dhs. 1522). --------- N: The Tiika states that the expression ‘from the Suttas’ refers to naama that has consciousness as condition. As to logic (yuttito) this refers to ruupa which is conditioned by consciousness. As to ‘mentality-materiality of rebirth-linking has consciousness as its condition’, the Vis. text refers to the expression ‘cittanuparivattino dhammaa’, in the Dhammasangani, 1539. This is translated here as ‘states with parallel occurrence through consciousness', but by U Kyaw Khine (translation of Dhs) it is translated as ‘dhammaa which always accompany mind’. The examples given here are the naama-khandhas of feeling, sa~n~naa, sa”nkhaarakkhandha, and also the ruupas which are bodily intimation and speech intimation. Thus, vi~n~naa.nakkhandha is always accompanied by the three other naamakhandhas and vi~n~naa.na conditions the accompanying cetasikas by way of conascence and the other conditions which refer to dhammas that are conascent, such as mutuality, support, association, as mentioned in the preceding section. When citta produces the ruupas which are the two kinds of intimation, citta arises together with these two types of ruupas and is a condition for them. -------- Text Vis. :But as to logic: From matter seen here to be born Of consciousness a man can tell That consciousness is a condition For matter when unseen as well. Whether consciousness likes it or not, [certain] material instances are seen to arise in conformity with it. And the unseen is inferred from the seen. So it can be known, by means of the consciousness-born materiality that is seen, that consciousness is also a condition for the unseen materiality of rebirth-linking. For it is said in the Pa.t.thaana that, like the consciousness- originated, also the kamma-originated has consciousness as its condition (see P.tn.1, 172-73). ------- N: At the first moment of life kamma produces the rebirth- consciousness and also groups of ruupa that arise at the same time. These ruupas are also conditioned by the rebirth-consciousness that arises at the same time. ------- Text Vis.: This is how the exposition should be known 'by manner of condition'. This is the detailed explanation of the clause 'With consciousness as condition, mentality-materiality'. ****** N: The Tiika refers to the ‘Dhammacakkappavattanasutta”, “Setting in Motion the Wheel of Dhamma”. The Tiika states that by the words ‘vi~n~naa.na conditions naama/ruupa’, the Buddha taught to the wise who were investigating the truth that in the highest sense (paramatthato) only naama and ruupa occur, not a person, not a living being (na satto, na jiivo). Therefore, the matchless Wheel of Dhamma has been turned forward and cannot be rolled back. The Tiika states that this sutta proclaims the truth of emptiness, su~n~nattaa. By the words that only naama and ruupa occur he proclaimed the first noble Truth. By the proclamation of the truth of dukkha, also the Truth of its origin, its ceasing and the Way to its ceasing are implied. The Tiika adds that when there is no cause of dukkha, there will be its ceasing (nirodha); but this cannot be attained without developing the Way leading to its ceasing. --------- Conclusion: Because of ignorance of the four noble Truths we have to continue being in the cycle of birth and death. First the noble Truth of dukkha has to be understood: dukkha is the arising and falling away of realities right now. Ignorance hides the four noble Truths. If dukkha, occurring in our life, has not been understood, the cessation of dukkha, which is nibbaana, the reality which does not arise and fall away, cannot be realised. The cause of dukkha is clinging. Through the understanding of naama and ruupa appearing at this moment clinging to them can be eliminated. We take them for self and mine. But, as we learn, from the first moment of life on only naama and ruupa occur, not a person, not a living being. The Way leading to the cessation of dukkha is mindfulness and understanding of whatever reality appears now, be it seeing, hearing, hardness or visible object. In this way we shall learn that there is no person, no living being. As the Tiika states, without the Way (upaayena vinaa) the ceasing of dukkha cannot be attained. ****** Nina. #78416 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) dcwijeratna Dear Ken O, If you mean sammaa di.t.thi by right understanging, then I think it is nowing what is right and what is wrong, then deciding to follow the right and avoid the wrong. Regrads, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #78417 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (7) dcwijeratna Dear han, This is about chachakka sutta. 1. Really the complete explantion of the process of perception is in Madhupi.ndika MN18 2. That is the BUDDHAVACANA. 3. Abhidhammattha Sangaha is even later than A.t.thakathaa. It is a compendium developed by one Aacariya Anuruddha as a handbook for memorising. Don't allow anybody to bulldoze you to adopt anything other than the word of the Buddha. 4. It is a heinous crime to force people to become micchaadi.t.thikas I read a little bit of your life-story. Jolly good show. It reminds me of the gaathaa in Dhammapada "alankatho cepit sama.m careyya..." Great show, if you observe the other four precpets in that manner, I have read somewhere that you will be a stream-enterer before you die. For keeping that one precept perfectly, please accept my worshipful respect. May you live long and enjoy good health D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #78418 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma, Suttas & Meditation sarahprocter... Dear DC, Thank you also for kindly responding in detail. I understand all your comments. --- DC Wijeratna wrote: >...I don't even know whether there is any consensus on what you > refer to by the word Dhamma. I think I mentioned earlier, we conduct > discussions in a friendly manner, and our discussions are based on what > the world considers as facts. ... S: As you suggest, there are different understandings of even the words Dhamma and dhamma. Like you, I appreciate friendly discussions and have appreciated your responses in this regard. Yes, there are different views on the 'facts', even on who or what sees visible object. I think it's valuable for us all to share our knowledge together here, so of course we all question each other carefully! ... > > So, Sarah, I am sorry to disappoint you regarding this, > "Again, I look forward to examining just one of your sources carefully > with > you." In the future I shall not take part in any discussion of the DSG. > However, if any member writes to me on any matter, including Abhidhamma, > I shall give them what is the position accepted in the world of > scholars. If I can't give it myself, I have access to sufficient number > of people, considered by the world as authorities on the subjects > concerned; I can get their help to clarify. .... S: I will be glad to read any of your comments or accepted positions anytime, DC. It's very helpful that you have access to 'authorities' to help when needed as well. ... >I will not keep on arguing, ... S: Pls don't consider the discussions as arguments. If we don't consider carefully and discuss what we hear and read, we may just accept some of our long-held ideas blindly. I certainly find it useful to question and be questioned. We can treat this thread as closed. Thank you for your patience and attention to the detail in my posts. I'll look forward to reading your comments in other threads. With metta and appreciation for your kind consideration, Sarah ======== #78419 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Development of understanding - to Nina nilovg Dear Elaine, I shall try to answer, but do not think that I have realised myself what I write. This is what I learnt from Kh Sujin and you can see for yourself whether it makes sense to you. Op 9-nov-2007, om 20:38 heeft Elaine het volgende geschreven: > Elaine: (1) How is right understanding developed? > > > N: We have to know what right understanding is, what its object. > Usually we live in the world of conventional realities, such as > person, tree, table. But these are just concepts we can think of. > ------------ > > Elaine: A table is a conventional reality, what is the ultimate > reality of a table? -------- N: When a table is touched, hardness or heat may appear. These are ruupas that can be experienced through the bodysense. These are real, they can be experienced directly, without having to think of them. Table is an idea that one can think of, it cannot be directly experienced through one of the six doors. ------- > > E: On Right Understanding: And what, O bhikkhus, is right > understanding? To understand suffering, to understand the > origination of suffering, to understand extinction of suffering, to > understand the path leading to the extinction of suffering; this is > called right understanding. -------- N: We read many times about the four noble Truths, but they are not theory. They are related to our life now. As I wrote in my Visuddhimagga study: Also clinging now has to be understood. Kh Sujin asked us whether we were seeking things for ourselves since the time we got up this morning. We wish to get this or that, to eat, walk, etc. All such strivings are motivated by clinging and it is necessary to come to know them. -------- > > > E:(2) How can pa~n~naa be accumulated? > > > N: One moment of understanding arises and then falls away. It is > never lost, there are now conditions that it can arise again and > again and thus it is accumulated. It grows. We can compare this > with the situation of a child who learns different things at > school. Its knowledge develops more and more until it is mature. > ---------------- > Elaine: Does it mean that Panna grows and grows and it is > accumulated till the end of time, till Nibbana is attained? -------- N: Our first goal is more understanding of the naama and ruupa of our life. If we think too much of nibbana there can easily be clinging to an idea about it. We cannot understand nibbana anyway when we have not yet fully penetrated the truth of dukkha: the arising and falling away of naama and ruupa now. Kh Sujin stresses detachment very much. The Path is a Path of detachment. It is understanding itself that leads to detachment. But this happens only very gradually. When there is a little more understanding of what naama and ruupa are there is a condition for pa~n~naa to further develop. That is the accumulation of pa~n~naa. -------- > > E: From the N8FP, Right Wisdom (Panna) constitutes Right > Understanding and Right Intention/Right Thought. And what is right > thought? Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill-will, > on harmlessness: This is called right thought. ------- N: Right thought is of many levels and the Buddha mentioned them all. Freedom from ill-will is kusala vitakka. But the right thought accompanying right understanding of the eightfold Path has as object (when it is still mundane) a naama or ruupa appearing now. This factor assists right understanding in 'touching' the naama or ruupa that appears, so that right understanding can know it as it is. > > ------------------------------- > > > E: (3) By reading the suttas and listening to dhamma talks is it > enough to get enlightened? > > > N: What we heard has to be applied in our daily life. With great > confidence, with ardent energy, with perseverance. Never being > tired to consider again and again what we heard, testing out the > meaning, in our daily life now. At the same time performing any > kind of kusala through body, speech and mind for which there is an > opportunity. Not wasting any opportunities. It helps to think of > the wellbeing of others, more than being preoccupied with ourselves. > ----------------- > N: I could add that there should not be an idea of self trying to > reach the goal. Whenever there are conditions, sati arises > unexpectantly and it is aware of naama and ruupa. No self who can > select the object of sati. ---------- > Elaine: > IMO, reading the sutta and listening to dhamma talk is not enough > to get enlightened, unless that person has high intuition like the > most Venerable Sariputta. For a conceptual ordinary human being, > the way to get enlightened is to follow the N8FP, do you agree? ------- N: When a person is interested to listen to the Dhamma and to learn more about the Path it shows that he has accumulated this interest, it does not come from nowhere. We do not know the extent of pa~n~naa a particular person has accumulated in former lives. When we see the benefit of the eightfold Path there are conditions for its development. > -------------------------- > One more question. > E: (4) Why did the Buddha have to meditate under the Bodhi tree to > get enlightened? -------- N: The Buddha had to accumulate all the perfections, including pa~n~naa, for aeons. These were the right conditions for him to attain Buddhahood. This is not a matter of having to sit under the Bodhi tree and having to meditate. It all happened because of conditions. He attained jhaanas and the abhi~n~nas, higher knowledges, and the omniscience of a Buddha, just as the preceding Buddhas had. ------- Nina. #78420 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 2:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Development of understanding - to Nina nilovg Dear Elaine and Tep, I answer in short now. Concepts are ideas we think of and they do not have the three characteristics. The citta that thinks of them, thus, just the citta itself, is a reality that has the three characteristics. That citta falls away, and then there is no longer thinking of a concept. Therefore it may seem to you that a concept is aniccaa, but this is not so. Op 10-nov-2007, om 8:25 heeft Elaine het volgende geschreven: > Tep: By saying that understanding is "never lost", and that "it can > arise again and again and thus it is accumulated. It grows" seems > to contradict the dhamma characteristics, anicca and anata. > > Don't you think so, too ? > > Elaine: Yes. I think Nina did not really mean to say that panna is > a permanent thing that accumulates. It must be some typo mistake. > She has so many e-mails to reply to, I have to empathize with her. > Let’s wait for her reply. [Unless there is a storehouse where panna > is accumulated?] ------ N: No storehouse, but still, pa~n~naa is accumulated in each citta that arises and falls away. Our life is a long series of cittas succeeding one another and each citta that has fallen away conditions the next one. That is why kamma and wholesome or unwholesome qualities are as it were carried on from moment to moment. Accumulations are not static, time and again a new accumulation is added. We speak of different characters, but actually, there are good and bad tendencies lying dormant in each citta and these condition the arising of kusala citta and akusala citta. Nina. #78421 From: "rahula_80" Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 2:31 am Subject: Buddhism & War rahula_80 Hi, It is said that there is no war in Buddhism. Chapter 25, Mahavamsa, we find: Arrived at Mahiyangana he overpowered the Damila Chatta. When he had slain the Damilas in that very place he came then to Ambatitthaka, which had a trench leading from the river, and (conquered) the Damila Titthamba; fighting the crafty and powerful foe for four months he (finally) overcame him by cunning,' since he placed his mother in his view. When the mighty man marching thence down (the river) had conquered seven mighty Damila princes in one day and had established peace, he gave over the booty to his troops. Therefore is (the place)called Khemäräma. http://www.vipassana.com/resources/mahavamsa/mhv25.php Apparently it is legitimate to use someone's mother as a hostage in Buddhism. No? Dutthagamani is reported also to have said: "Not for the joy of sovereignty is this toil of mine, my striving (has been) ever to establish the doctrine of the Sambuddha." http://www.vipassana.com/resources/mahavamsa/mhv25.php I am interested in how would Buddhists explain theses passages to non-Buddhist/skeptics? Thanks, Rahula #78422 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 2:34 am Subject: Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, no 10. nilovg Dear friends, The Buddha taught about realities, dhammas, that appear one at a time through the five senses and through the mind-door. He taught about mental phenomena, nåma, and physical phenomena, rúpa. Consciousness or citta is nåma. There is one citta at a time and it cognizes an object, be it visible object, sound or one of the other sense objects, or a mental object that can be experienced through the mind- door. There is one citta at a time but it is accompanied by several mental factors, cetasikas, that each perform their own function while they assist citta in cognizing an object. Feeling and remembrance, for example, are cetasikas accompanying citta. Thus, what we take for a person is in reality citta and cetasika, which are both nåma, and rúpa. Citta, cetasika and rúpa do not last, they arise and fall away. If one does not learn about the Buddha’s teaching and develop more understanding of nåma and rúpa, the world seems to be full of people and things which last. We take fleeting realities for things that exist, such as a person, a table, a cup or a chair. Citta, cetasika and rúpa are real in the ultimate or absolute sense, they are different from conventional truth or concepts (paññattis). What is true in the ultimate sense is called in Påli: paramattha dhamma [1]. We can also refer to paramattha dhammas as dhammas, realities. When we speak about the Buddha’s teachings we refer to it as the Dhamma, but the word dhamma has several meanings. Dhamma can mean that which has its own characteristic and is devoid of self. In that sense it is the same as dhåtu, element. Nåma and rúpa are only elements, devoid of self. Paramattha dhammas have each their own characteristic which is unalterable. Seeing has its own characteristic that cannot be changed, no matter how we name it. We can call it by another name, but seeing is always seeing, its characteristic cannot be changed. Seeing experiences what is visible, colour or visible object. Visible object has its own characteristic and when it appears it can be directly experienced without having to name it. Anger is a type of nåma that has its own characteristic which cannot be changed. Anger is always anger, no matter how we name it. Hardness is a kind of rúpa that can be directly experienced through the bodysense, no matter how we name it. When we touch a cup or a chair we know their different meanings in conventional sense: we drink from a cup and we sit on a chair. However, when we touch them hardness may appear. We can verify that hardness is only an element, a kind of rúpa that has the characteristic of hardness, to be experienced through the bodysense, no matter it is hardness of a cup, a chair or a hand. We can directly experience it without thinking of it, without naming it. It is important to learn the difference between paramattha dhammas and concepts. Right understanding developed through satipaììhåna has as object paramattha dhammas, not concepts. Concepts are not real in the ultimate or fundamental sense, they are objects of thinking. When we see people walking, we cling immediately to shape and form, to a conglomeration of things, to a concept of a whole. In reality seeing sees just visible object, no people. Thinking thinks of the concept of people who are walking; thinking is a paramattha dhamma, it is nåma, but the concept it thinks of is not a paramattha dhamma. Thinking is conditioned by seeing. Acharn Sujin asked us: “Can there be people without visible object?” --------- 1. Parama means highest. Paramattha dhamma is what is real in the highest, the ultimate sense, what is fundamentally true. ******** Nina. #78423 From: han tun Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 2:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (7) hantun1 Dear DC, Thank you very much for your kind understanding and words of encouragement. I also wish you a very long life and a good health. Respectfully, Han #78424 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 2:57 am Subject: India 2. nilovg Dear friends, first a correction: our Malaysian friends came from Saba, not Padang. India 2. Kh Sujin: ****************** Nina. #78425 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:06 am Subject: Re: A better way to discourage meditators! philofillet HI Ken Thanks for your response to my weird homework assignment. > We are never against samadhi, we are saying one must have right > understanding to start any inclinations one like. Samadhi without > the right understanding would result one rebirth to the highest > immaterial realm, that does not eradicate defilement completely only > suppress them. OK. I didn't know that about that realm. Please note that Buddha was able to do meditation up > the highest level of immaterial realm when he learn from a teacher > before becoming a Buddha but he still left something is missing. OK. I see. > The samadhi you seen in Vismudhi, did you see the introductory > preparation before embarking on the mediation technique about the ten > faults of the monastery etc. No, but close! Ten something....if you or anyone feel inclined to have a look, please do! Ten something.... :) > Nonetheless, if that is your inclinations, pse go ahead, just > remember right understanding is always the forerunner > Right. But I think the right understanding that AS promotes is far too ariyan for a fellow like me! (and for all of us, in my opinion.) I am more motivated by the right view I see emphasized again and again in the suttanta (and vism, for that matter.) I am familiar with the wrong view that there is no result to deeds, that one can commit akusala kamma deeds and get off scott free. Being free of that wrong view is the one I am concerned about. Anyways, thanks. Please have a look for those 10 something if you have time, Ken or anyone. Metta, Phil #78426 From: han tun Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:59 am Subject: Realities and Concepts (2) hantun1 Dear All, I am presenting a series of Questions and Answers taken from the book, Realities and Concepts by Ajahn Sujin Boriharnwanaket. Comments and different opinions are welcome! -------------------- Question (3): If it is known through the mind-door that there is a pen, is that right or wrong? Sujin: It is not wrong. The object at that moment is a concept which is included in dhammarammana (mind door object). However, panna should realize the difference between the mind-door process and the eye-door process. When one does not develop panna one cannot distinguish the sense-door process and the mind-door process from each other and then one believes that there are beings, people and different things. To what are we attached in daily life? What does lobha (mental factor of craving) like? It likes everything, and what does this mean? Questioner: All things which are desirable. Sujin: Lobha likes everything, including concepts. The world is full of concepts. We cannot stop liking paramattha dhammas as well as pannattis. Whenever we like something we do not merely like a paramattha dhamma, we also like a concept. When we, for example, like a particular belt we like the colour which appears through the eyes. Questioner: 'We like also its trademark Sujin: We like everything. When we say that we like colours, what are these colours? The colours of eye brows, eyes, nose, or lips. If there were no colours appearing how could there be eyebrows, eyes, nose, or mouth? There could not be. However, when we see colours such as red, green, grey, blue, or white we should know that colour is only the reality which appears through the eyes. Nevertheless, we like the colours of eyes, nose, and lips, thus, we like concepts. Paramattha dhammas are real. However, when we like something we like both the paramattha dhamma which appears and the concept which is formed up on account of that paramattha dhamma. -------------------- With metta, Han #78427 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 12:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (7) upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Han & Larry) - In a message dated 11/9/2007 11:56:16 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: S: Just for clarification, seeing, hearing, smeeling and tasting consciousness are *accompanied* by neutral feeling. This was the point. ============================== As regards smelling & tasting, though quite possibly the case, this is counter-intuitive. It is clear to me that the feeling of sights and sounds is neutral. These objects may be quickly followed by body-door objects that are felt as pleasant or unpleasant or by mind-door construction that results in a pleasant or unpleasant affective evaluation of a mind-door object, but sights and sounds themselves are unsurprisingly felt as neutral. However, some tastes and smells seem to be universally and immediately felt as pleasant or unpleasant. I suppose that is just a seeming, though. After all, there are always to be found people who enjoy extreme bitterness in taste and odor, and there is similar variation for typically "pleasant" tastes and odors. But it does seem to me that certain tastes and odors are always felt as unpleasant. For example, and I apologize for creating this thought in people's minds, the odor resulting from regurgitation seems to be unpleasant at all times for all people, itself inducing regurgitation on the part of others. And the affective and motor responses seem to follow directly from the smelling, not requiring the interposition of a thought process, but entirely physical. With metta, Howard #78428 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 12:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (7) upasaka_howard Hi, Larry (and Sarah) - In a message dated 11/10/2007 12:26:07 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: Hi again Sarah, Sarah: "Every single citta is accompanied by a feeling. I think your point about satipatthana is that there is only ever one dhamma as object of satipatthana. This is correct, but there's no conflict. No citta (and accompanying cetasikas) experience more than one object." Larry: My point was that satipatthana cannot know co-arising dhammas as such. So whatever feeling accompanies contact is irrelevant to satipatthana. Larry ================================= Larry, here you are touching on what I've been talking about with respect to what I call "fresh memories". The knowing of cetasikas must be after-the-fact and thus ever-so-slightly indirect. With metta, Howard #78429 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 12:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (7) upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Larry) - In a message dated 11/10/2007 12:46:51 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Larry, --- LBIDD@... wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > "Note 56. 'Pleasure and pain respectively gratify and afflict by acting > in one way on the body and in another way on the mind,..." > > Larry: Another point on this topic: S. N. Goenka, who has spent a great > deal of time investigating feeling, is of the view that all pleasure and > pain are bodily pleasure and pain only. I am inclined to agree. What is > your experience? ... S: My experience is that Goenka's comments on feelings (vedana) have always been very confused. The rupas (e.g. temperature, solidity, motion as experienced through the body-sense) get mixed up with the namas (e.g vedana) for a start. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Exactly so, IMO. ----------------------------------------------------- Let me repeat some comments I've made before: Just to clarify, ALL feelings are namas (vedana khandha). Those referred to as ‘physical’ refer to feelings accompanying cittas experiencing their objects through the body-sense. So if you put your hand in ice cold water, there will be unpleasant bodily feeling (dukkha vedana) accompanying the citta of body sense consciousness (vipaka citta) which experiences the coldness (a rupa). This will usually be followed by unhappy mental feeling (domanassa, another kind of vedana) accompanying cittas in the javana cittas (in the sense and mind door processes). ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: That's as I see it also. I suppose the subsequent unpleasant mental feeling has the prior unpleasant feeling (of the coldness) as object - it has the just-fallen-away vedana as object; that is, it is a reaction to the just-passed, unpleasant vedana. ========================== With metta, Howard #78430 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Development of understanding - to Nina upasaka_howard Hi Elaine (and Tep) - In a message dated 11/10/2007 2:26:07 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, shennieca@... writes: Tep: By saying that understanding is "never lost", and that "it can arise again and again and thus it is accumulated. It grows" seems to contradict the dhamma characteristics, anicca and anata. Don't you think so, too ? Elaine: Yes. I think Nina did not really mean to say that panna is a permanent thing that accumulates. It must be some typo mistake. She has so many e-mails to reply to, I have to empathize with her. Let’s wait for her reply. [Unless there is a storehouse where panna is accumulated?] ============================= As I understand the position adopted by Khun Sujin, Nina, and others, mind states are contiguous but discrete states following in sequence like the frames of a film, with each state conditioning the following state. In that immediate conditioning, the nature and intensity of the cetasikas in the "next state" are conditioned by the current state. When that conditioning results in the heightening of a cetasika, pa~n~na for example (i.e., the pa~n~na is stronger in the next state), that could be referred to metaphorically as an accumulating of that cetasika. This view of states that I call a "packet view" with its emphasis on temporal contiguity is not my perspective, but it is a coherent perspective.In any case, I DO agree that the "accumulating" is not a matter of something actually being stored, but is a matter of conditions and subsequent response to conditions, and that the term 'accumulations' is metaphorical. (Pa~n~na, for example, is a mental operation, not "stuff" to be accumulated.) With metta, Howard #78431 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:29 am Subject: Re: Development of understanding - to Nina buddhistmedi... Hi Elaine, - You wrote, "Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. It gives me the opportunity to learn the Dhamma from you." I think since we do not know everything, we need to learn from each other and from other people too; and when we do, they are our teachers. So the role of teaching and learning alternates. Good teachers are also good students who never stop learning. Thank you so much for teaching me a lot in this message. Your questions often are good answers at the same time. It is incredible. I need to learn from you how to do that. >E: >My logic thinking is that, if a person a concept, and a person has these 3 characteristics of dukkha, anicca and anatta, shouldn't that become a concept will have these 3 characteristics as well? T: Right. If A is the same as B, and B has certain characteristics. Then who can deny that A must also have the same characteristics? >E: >1. What explanations do Abhidhammikas give to the question, why concept does not have the 3 characteristics? >2. How do concepts fit into sabbe sankhara and sabbe dhamma? Sabbe sankhara anicca (all formations are impermanent) Sabbe sankhara dukkha (all formations are suffering) Sabbe dhamma anatta (all things are not-self) >3. Why aren't pannati (concepts) included in the sankhara or the dhamma? T: Let me give my one-Japanese-Yen worth of answers (that will certainly be rejected by the Abhidhammikas here). 1. They have been trying very hard to explain, Elaine. Give them more time. :-)) 2. Great question. Concepts are formations (sankhara), therefore they are aniccam, dukkham, anattaa. Q.E.D. 3. Pannatti is a sankhata-dhamma without any question. But it is my understanding that the DSG Abhidhammikas have redefined 'dhammas' as 'ultimate realities' and concepts as 'conventional truths' that are not real in the 'ultimate sense'. And that has been ultimately confusing to me. ........................ >E: >I also think with right understanding, a person can finally realize what are conventional realities and what are ultimate realities. Are these the "objects" that you confused with? T: Yes, concepts and ultimate realities as objects of satipatthana/panna, according to Nina and the KS' students, confuse me now and then. ........................ Thanks. Tep ==== #78432 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:50 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (70) nichiconn dear friends, Part 11 13. Viisatinipaato 5. Subhaakammaaradhiitutheriigaathaava.n.nanaa verse: 348. "Ta.m ma.m ~naatii amittaava, ki.m vo kaamesu yu~njatha; jaanaatha ma.m pabbajita.m, kaamesu bhayadassini.m. 346. Why do you, my relatives, like enemies, urge me on towards sensual pleasures? You know that I have gone forth, seeing fear in sensual pleasures. txt: Ta.m ma.m ~naatii amittaava, ki.m vo kaamesu yu~njathaati taadisa.m ma.m yathaa kaamesu viratta.m tumhe ~naatii ~naatakaa samaanaa anatthakaamaa amittaa viya ki.m kena kaara.nena kaamesu yu~njatha niyojetha. Jaanaatha ma.m pabbajita.m, kaamesu bhayadassininti kaame bhayato passanti.m pabbajita.m ma.m aajaanaatha, ki.m ettaka.m tumhehi ana~n~naatanti adhippaayo. 346. Why (ki.m) do you, my relatives (~naatii), like enemies, urge me on towards sensual pleasures? means: why, for what reason (kena kaara.nena), do you my relatives, my relations (~naatakaa), like enemies, like those desireing [my] bad fortune, urge, incite (niyojetha), me who is of a kind that is detached from sensual pleasures on towards sensual pleasures? You know (jaanaatha) that I have gone forth, seeing fear (bhaya-dassini.m) in sensual pleasures (kaamesu) means: you know (aajaanaatha) that I have gone forth, seeing fear (bhayato passanti.m) in sensual pleasures (kaame). What exactly do you not know? This is the meaning. verse: 349. "Na hira~n~nasuva.n.nena, parikkhiiyanti aasavaa; amittaa vadhakaa kaamaa, sapattaa sallabandhanaa. 347. The taints do not diminish because of gold, coined or uncoined. Sensual pleasures are enemies, murderers, hostile, binding with ropes. txt: Na hira~n~nasuva.n.nena, parikkhiiyanti aasavaati kaamaasavaadayo hira~n~nasuva.n.nena na kadaaci parikkhaya.m gacchanti, atha kho tehi eva pariva.d.dhanteva. Tenaaha- "amittaa vadhakaa kaamaa, sapattaa sallabandhanaa"ti. Kaamaa hi ahitaavahattaa mettiyaa abhaavena amittaa, mara.nahetutaaya ukkhittaasikavadhakasadisattaa vadhakaa, anubandhitvaapi anatthaavahanataaya veraanubandhasapattasadisattaa sapattaa, raagaadiina.m sallaana.m bandhanato sallabandhanaa. 347. The taints (aasavaa) do not diminish (na parikkhiiyanti) because of gold, coined or uncoined means: the taints of sensual desire, etc. (kaamaasavaadayo), never go away (parikkhaya.m gacchanti) because of gold, coined or uncoined. On the contrary, they simply increase because of them [coined and uncoined gold]. There she says: sensual pleasures are like enemies (amittaa), murderers (vadhakaa), hostile (sapattaa), binding with ropes (salla-bandhanaa). Indeed, sensual pleasures through the state of bringing harm because of the absence of friendship (mettiyaa abhaavena) are enemies. Through being the cause of death and through the state of being like murderers with raised swords (ukkhittaasika-vadhaka-sadisa-ttaa), they are murderers following in one's footsteps. Through the state of being like hostile people continually performing hostile action (varaanubandha-sapatta-sadisa-ttaa) that leads to misfortune, they are hostile. Through binding with the ropes of passion (sallaana.m bandhanato), etc, they are binding with ropes. verse: 350. "Ta.m ma.m ~naatii amittaava, ki.m vo kaamesu yu~njatha; jaanaatha ma.m pabbajita.m, mu.n.da.m sa"nghaa.tipaaruta.m. 348. Why do you, my relatives, like enemies, urge me on towards sensual pleasures? You know that I have gone forth, with shaven head, clad in the outer robe. txt: Mu.n.danti mu.n.ditakesa.m. Tattha tattha nantakaani gahetvaa sa"nghaa.ticiivarapaarupanena sa"nghaa.tipaaruta.m. 348. With shaven head (mu.n.da.m) means: with the hair of my head shaved (mu.n.dita-kesa.m). Having taken rags from here and there [and making a robe], through clothing herself in the robe that is the outer robe (sa.mghaa.ti-ciivara-paarupanena), she is clad in the outer robe (sa.m-ghaa.ti-paaruta.m). ===to be continued, connie #78433 From: Dieter Möller Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 7:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Development of understanding - to Nina moellerdieter Hi Howard, you wrote : snip.. I DO agree that the "accumulating" is not a matter of something actually being stored, but is a matter of conditions and subsequent response to conditions, and that the term 'accumulations' is metaphorical. (Pa~n~na, for example, is a mental operation, not "stuff" to be accumulated.)' D: I haven't followed the topic in detail .. seemingly I miss something can you please explain to me how a gradual development of understanding -' step by step ' - as emphasized by the Buddha is possible without accumulation of insight? Isn't growing wisdom (panna) not preceded by the Noble Path training of Sila and Samadhi? with Metta Dieter #78434 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 2:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Development of understanding - to Nina upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 11/10/2007 10:06:48 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Howard, you wrote : snip.. I DO agree that the "accumulating" is not a matter of something actually being stored, but is a matter of conditions and subsequent response to conditions, and that the term 'accumulations' is metaphorical. (Pa~n~na, for example, is a mental operation, not "stuff" to be accumulated.)' D: I haven't followed the topic in detail .. seemingly I miss something can you please explain to me how a gradual development of understanding -' step by step ' - as emphasized by the Buddha is possible without accumulation of insight? Isn't growing wisdom (panna) not preceded by the Noble Path training of Sila and Samadhi? with Metta Dieter ============================ Yes, of course "growing" wisdom is preceded by such training. The training consists of conditions that, with each occurrence, lead to greater and more-frequently-occurring acts of insight. When, across time, wisdom occurs more frequently and more strongly, we *call* that an "accumulation of wisdom". The increase in frequency and strength is, of course, not random, but conditioned. Each new occurrence of a wisdom-fostering condition is one more "step" in the cultivation of wisdom. Once all defilements are uprooted, so that they can never arise again, perfect wisdom without recession, wisdom that always functions, is the order of the day. With metta, Howard #78435 From: "Larry" Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 7:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (7) lbidd2 Hi Sarah. Sarah: "My experience is that Goenka's comments on feelings (vedana) have always been very confused." Larry: I meant what is your experience of feeling? Has the feeling associated with sadness ever not arisen in the body in your experience, for example as a "heart ache"? I suspect abhidhamma and Mr. Goenka are using the word "bodily" in different ways. Abhidhamma means bodily feeling is a feeling with a rupa as object. Goenka means bodily feeling is a feeling that arises in the body, even though it is nama. Larry #78436 From: "Larry" Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 8:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (7) lbidd2 Hi again Sarah, S: "I think it's helpful to understand, even theoretically, that it is neutral feeling that accompanies seeing consciousness. We attach such great importance to what is seen and usually are under the delusion that we have pleasant and unpleasant experiences whilst seeing different objects. For example, we see something on T.V. which is disturbing - let's say starving children in Africa or monks being beaten in Burma. What is actually seen, however, is only ever visible object and this is seen with neutral feeling. All the stories, all the unpleasant feelings are experienced by subsequent mind-door processes." Larry: I think this is more a matter of distinguishing between seeing consciousness and feeling. If we keep the notion that only neutral feeling arises with seeing, hearing, tasting, and smelling we take the value out of kamma result (assuming that value = feeling), and we risk making nonsense out of the dependent arising formula. Surely it is unreasonable to think that the neutral feeling of tasting consciousness is the decisive support condition for craving for food. Visuddhimagga mentions that accumulated kamma is also responsible for conditioning craving. In that case we have kamma of present desire conditioned by the kamma of past feeling, but what conditioned the kamma of past feeling and how is satipatthana to know it? All we have to work with is the present pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral feeling. Larry #78437 From: "Larry" Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 8:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (7) lbidd2 Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > > Hi, Larry (and Sarah) - > > In a message dated 11/10/2007 12:26:07 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > LBIDD@... writes: > > Hi again Sarah, > > Sarah: "Every single citta is accompanied by a feeling. I think your > point > about satipatthana is that there is only ever one dhamma as object of > satipatthana. This is correct, but there's no conflict. No citta (and > accompanying cetasikas) experience more than one object." > > Larry: My point was that satipatthana cannot know co-arising dhammas as > such. So whatever feeling accompanies contact is irrelevant to > satipatthana. > > Larry > > > ================================= > Larry, here you are touching on what I've been talking about with > respect to what I call "fresh memories". The knowing of cetasikas must be > after-the-fact and thus ever-so-slightly indirect. Larry: It's hard to say exactly how experience works. On a gross level everything seems to happen at once. Closer inspection seems to suggest one kind of dhamma at a time. Satipatthana can discover all the bits and pieces and construct an explanation as to how they fit together. But in the end all explanations are unsatisfactory ;-) Larry #78438 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:02 am Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Thanks for the reply: A: "Anything that can be expressed is a concept..." Scott: So you think that everything is conceptual. You suggest that if it can be expressed then it is concept alone. I ask you: Concept of what? A: "...Only when 6 senses cease and paranibbana is realized - only that goes beyond words and concepts." Scott: What are the 6 senses? Are they concept? What goes beyond words and concepts following paranibbaana? A: "N8P IS NOT PARAMATTHA DHAMMA. It is conditioned and improvised which will have to be LET GO OFF. If there were ANY paramattha dhamma (word not used by the Buddha as in sabhava particle) then liberation would be IMPOSSIBLE. MN22" Scott: You need to look at sabhava again, Alex. I don't know where you're getting this pseudo-fancy stuff like 'sabhava particle'. Sabhava is merely characteristic. No particle - that, I'd say, would be a concept. A: "IF a person creates any sort of ultimates, then there is clinging there. Ego just LOVES ultimate and stable concepts which it can consiously or subconsiously appropriate. Please tell me in which sutta where the Buddha has talked about paramattha dhamma as in 'sabhava particles'." Scott: Enough of these 'sabhava particles' Alex. At least you could have the courtesy to define this term and reference its source before demanding that I jump and start diving for the suttas. And please stop with the rabid Bible-bashing - that is not Dhamma study as I see it. What is your conception of what there is to be 'known' in the world? The above is just pop-buddhism and pop-psychology. What do you mean by bringing in the non-Dhamma dichotomy of conscious/sub-conscious to the discussion? 'Ego' is concept' Lobha loves. A: "A paramattha dhamma (not taught by the Buddha)..." Scott: So you're saying that the Buddha did not teach paramattha dhammas. Is this your sole aim? I see no point in discussing when your aim is simply to refute. Is there a way we can come to discuss that differs from this? A: "...cannot act or be acted upon. It is contradictory to have paramattha dhamma & conditional relations. This ridiculous concept has been refuted many times through the history of Buddhist philosophy. Nagarjuna went to great length refuting this. Something that is ultimate would not be empirically visible or experienced. Furthermore in MN#1 Buddha has refuted any attempt to build "conditional relations". He must have spoken to proto-abhidhammikas." Scott: Alright, Alex. What gives, man? Who is Nagarjuna when he's in his cave? Why would I - you know a guy interacting on the list dedicated to "...understanding the Buddha's teachings as found in all three baskets of the Tipitaka, the original record of the Buddha's word in the Theravada tradition, and as further elucidated in the ancient commentaries of that tradition" - have any interest in a refutation by Nagarjuna? No offense to Nagarjuna or those who dig him but they seem to be somewhere else discussing his refutations, or haven't you noticed? Sometimes I really wonder if you want to study with me or just take a copy of the Sa.myutta Nikaaya (you know, the big one) and bash me over the head with it repeatedly. Can you give an account of yourself in this regard? I realise I'm no one to ask and don't expect a thing from you but I'm just curious. A: "...It is contradictory to have paramattha dhamma & conditional relations." Scott: We could discuss this if you wish. Your understanding of both these things differs entirely from mine (and I don't mean to imply that I understand them but if mutual understanding of the theory, without constant 'refutation' (honestly - refutation) is possible, we can still agree to disagree - at least we have an understanding of what we disagree on. I don't think you have a proper notion of the way these things are meant in the abstract and hence don't know what you disagree with. A: "Look, if you are going to insist that, THEN YOU ARE RIGHT! If a 'person' insists that "today it is impossible", then he is right - for him/her 'self'." Scott: Pure claptrap, man. This is the most warmed-over pop psychology going. There's no dealing with it. A: "A person with highly developed panna will be able to distinguish between Dhamma and Adhamma and act accordingly." Scott: How do you understand the phrase 'developed pa~n~naa'? I'd be curious. My guess is you'll say something about some state of understanding that someone has. And as far as the above, I'll assume you mean to imply that you yourself are one of these laudable ones able to make such a distinction, whereas I, poor insensate heathen and heretic, cannot - but perhaps with your benevolent help... A: "Well, they can definately walk and talk and recite the teachings. :) They aren't really "people" in a sense of non-clinging to the aggregates." Scott: Ha Ha. Good one. What do you mean in the latter point? A: "A "person" is a designation for 5 aggregates, a convinient short hand device for linguistic purposes." Scott: And? A: "Please provide references. He often defined 'birth' as literal birth, and 'death' as literal death." Scott: No. Not a single reference until you demonstrate to me that you are interested in discussion and not just contrariness. Sincerely, Scott. #78439 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:46 am Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) truth_aerator Dear Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Thanks for the reply: > > A: "Anything that can be expressed is a concept..." > > Scott: So you think that everything is conceptual. You suggest that > if it can be expressed then it is concept alone. I ask you: Concept > of what? >>>>>> A perception of consiousnesses. >>>>>> > Scott: What are the 6 senses? Are they concept? What goes beyond > words and concepts following paranibbaana? > >>>>>>> 6 senses are dependently arisen. They aren't ultimate even though they do fulfill functions. "eye, ear, nose, tongue, etc" are perceptions (concept) based on consiousness. In fact we can say that rupa is perception of certain consiousness (tactile, visual for example) As someone (Sariputta to Mahakotthita?) has said: 6 senses is the range of concepts, when 6 senses cease (in Parinibbnna) all concepts cease as well. > > What is your conception of what there is to be 'known' in the world? >>>>>> 5 aggregates, 6 consiousness, DO, 4 NT, anicca-dukha-anatta, etc ... > > > A: "...It is contradictory to have paramattha dhamma & conditional > relations." > > Scott: We could discuss this if you wish. Your understanding of both > these things differs entirely from mine (and I don't mean to imply that I understand them but if mutual understanding of the theory, > >>>>>> Dear Scott, please then briefly explain how could "ultimate dhammas" act and be acted upon. For example in the 7 universal cetasikas a) do they all arise at once? or b) one arises, ceases and the next one arises & ceases and so on. If the arise: a)How do they arise? b) How long do they endure? c) How do they cease? > > > Scott: How do you understand the phrase 'developed pa~n~naa'? I'd be curious. >>> As I understand it is seeing 4 NT without overlooking arising & ceasing. It also means that one does not see non self as self, pleasure as unpleasure, beauty where there isn't beauty, permance for impermanence. Satipathana is "ekayano maggo" which develops LOTS of panna. > A: "Please provide references. He often defined 'birth' as literal > birth, and 'death' as literal death." > > Scott: No. Not a single reference until you demonstrate to me that > you are interested in discussion and not just contrariness. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > "And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to- be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] spheres of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth. "And what is aging? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. "And what is death? Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.141.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html Lots of Metta, Alex #78440 From: Dieter Möller Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) moellerdieter Hi Ken and others , you wrote: You didn't answer my three-part question. Was that because you thought it was rhetorical? I wouldn't blame you if you did. D: somehow yes..answering a question by a question .. ;-) you wrote : Ken:'Before I comment I would like to know in which way you interpret the teachings of Ven Thanissaro. In your opinion, does he maintain (1) there is a self that both acts and receives the fruits of its actions, (2) the doctrine of anatta is a mere tactic, or strategy, used by meditators to calm their minds, and (3) after parinibbana the self is free to "wander wherever it pleases?" D: well, I mentioned that I am open.. meaning no conclusion so far about the Venerable's Dhamma interpretation other than positive. When you say : In your opinion, does he maintain 1...., you assume that I am familar with his publications (which I am not though having read some) . Therefore to get an opinion I need to see the points supported by quotations (sources)in order to understand its context of reasons. But in case you ask me in general about my view to the 3 points: '1) there is a self that both acts and receives the fruits of its actions' D: it is said that we are the owner, the heirs of our actions .. that is conventional truth, you refer to the ultimate in a sense of conditioned dhammas, don't you? '(2) the doctrine of anatta is a mere tactic, or strategy, used by meditators to calm their minds' (3) after parinibbana the self is free to "wander wherever it pleases?" D: I disagree with both .. K: Normally, I would have thought those three points were axiomatic to all Buddhists. D: talking about all Buddhists .. probably only the 4 Noble Truths are axiomatic..and then , considered that taking refuge into the Triple Gem already qualifies for being called a Buddhist, even less.. K: That is to say, I would have thought all Buddhists believed (1) while there was action and result there was no self that acted or received the result D: seemingly you asume the understanding of a stream-enterer , who does not belief in a self anymore.. for the others it is a question of penetration into the 4 N.T. ( by heart , not by the head only ) K: (2) the doctrine of anatta means that (contrary to all the evidence in the conventionally known world) there is nothing that has continued from the past to the present or that will continue from the present to the future, D: no nothing..... but the stream of action , conditioned by (avijja -) sankhara compare with S.N. 35 ,145 (transl. by Thanissaro Bhikkhu) "Monks, I will teach you new & old kamma, the cessation of kamma, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma. Listen and pay close attention. I will speak. "Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma. "And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with the intellect: This is called new kamma. "And what is the cessation of kamma? Whoever touches the release that comes from the cessation of bodily kamma, verbal kamma, & mental kamma: This is called the cessation of kamma. "And what is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma? Just this noble eightfold path.... snip unquote 'K :(3) parinibbana means the final cessation of all khandhas (including consciousness). D: yes.. I would be quite surprised to find a strange statement like above to be said/written by the Venerable K: But that is not so! There seems to be a large proportion of Buddhists who believe in an eternal soul. (Although they prefer not to call it by that name.) D: I don't think so.. certainly a large proportion of Buddhists accept the samsaric reality but hope and believe they may be able to be free of it by the guidance of the Dhamma and realize nibbana ..somewhere in future... K: (D: Though I recognised in the past some criticism , it seem to me far from proving the Venerable of spreading false Dhamma, e.g. preaching eternalism, which - I am not sure - you are accusing him (?) )---------------------------- It is never nice to accuse people of wrong doing. It is especially unpleasant to accuse a monk. But, thanks to the Buddha's teaching (of no-self), that is not necessary. We can simply discuss views and opinions. We can consider and discuss, 'Which views (according to our understanding of the Dhamma) are right, and which are wrong?' D: yes , we can and we should consider and discuss (Dhamma-Vicaya) and probably give the Venerable or his students a chance to comment if possible before judgement . Do I remember correctly that a DSG member wrote a complaint to the owner of accesstoinsight ..? K: I did something like that four or five years ago. I posted message #34543 to Victor, a former DSG member who insisted that the Buddha did not teach no-self. (I believe Victor has since become ordained at Ven Thanissaro's temple, Wat Metta.) As for interpretations of Thanissaro's writings, please look at another old post of mine - 34782 - and tell me what you think. D: I will do .. but perhaps we have a start for exchange already .. ;-) with Metta Dieter #78441 From: Dieter Möller Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Development of understanding - to Nina moellerdieter Hi Howard, I think we agree on this issue .. probably missed what you meant by 'not "stuff" to be accumulated.' with Metta Dieter #78442 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:34 am Subject: Re: Buddhism & War truth_aerator Hi Rahula, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rahula_80" wrote: > > > I am interested in how would Buddhists explain theses passages to > non-Buddhist/skeptics? > > Thanks, > Rahula > Politicians often use religion to justify their dirty wars and so on. Just because some "Buddhist" does something bad it doesn't mean that it is what Buddhism teaches. As far as I am concerned, a good Buddhist would not willfully harm even a fly. Where did Buddha (not someone "following" Him) preach war and violence? Best wishes, Alex #78443 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:00 am Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Thanks for the reply. Me: "Concept of what?" A: "A perception of consiousnesses." Scott: Concept of a 'perception'? What do you mean by 'consciousnesses' in the plural? A: "6 senses are dependently arisen. They aren't ultimate even though they do fulfill functions. "eye, ear, nose, tongue, etc" are perceptions (concept) based on consiousness. In fact we can say that rupa is perception of certain consiousness (tactile, visual for example)" Scott: But what is 'sense' in your view? You say 'senses' are 'perceptions (concept) based on consciousness'. You seem to be describing exactly nothing. If a perception is conceptual then you seem to believe, like it is in the Beatles' 'Strawberry Fields Forever', 'nothing is real'. In stating that '6 senses are dependently arisen' you seem to imply some sort actuality to them. Then, in suggesting that perceptions are concept, you undo the meaning of the first statement. As far as your last statment goes, ruupa is the element that does not experience anything. Ruupa is not 'perception of certain consciousness'. Do you meant that ruupa can be object of certain consciousness? This would be correct. This maintains the integrity of the difference - a real one - between naama and ruupa. A: "As someone (Sariputta to Mahakotthita?) has said: 6 senses is the range of concepts, when 6 senses cease (in Parinibbnna) all concepts cease as well." Scott: Well, I'm still not clear as to your meaning. Can I read the sutta from which this is paraphrased? A" "5 aggregates, 6 consiousness, DO, 4 NT, anicca-dukha-anatta, etc" Scott: What are the five aggregates? What are the six consciousnesses? What is dependently originated? To what do the Four Noble Truths refer? What is it that has these three characteristics? A: "Dear Scott, please then briefly explain how could "ultimate dhammas" act and be acted upon." Scott: They don't act. They are not little selves. They have characteristics which are their function and that is all. The elements interact and are related by being conditioned by, by conditioning, and by being moved by conditioning 'forces' (which is not energy or some such). A: "For example in the 7 universal cetasikas a) do they all arise at once? or b) one arises, ceases and the next one arises & ceases and so on." Scott: The sabbacitta saadhaara.naa cetasikas arise together with each citta. When citta and cetasika, which arise at once and together fall away together and at once, then, with the arising of the immediately following citta, these arise again. Not the old ones. New ones. A: "If the arise: a)How do they arise? b) How long do they endure? c) How do they cease?" Scott: How as in what is the mechanism of their arising? I think that they arise due to conditions, a la the 24 conditions enumerated and described in the Pa.t.thaana. I may be misunderstanding the 'how' in your question. They arise, have presence, and fall away. They cease in the moment in the same way that all ceases at the moment of parinibaana, I would assume. Do you know the exact mechanism of that ceasing? A: "As I understand it is seeing 4 NT without overlooking arising & ceasing. It also means that one does not see non self as self, pleasure as unpleasure, beauty where there isn't beauty, permance for impermanence. Satipathana is "ekayano maggo" which develops LOTS of panna." Scott: 'Seeing' - what 'sees'? How do you define satipa.t.thaana? Of what does it consist in your view? Sincerely, Scott. #78444 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] to Han.Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (7) nilovg Dear Han, thank you for all your interesting reports. Op 10-nov-2007, om 0:10 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Then there was a discussion on the following points > (as noted by Sarah). > - the importance of understanding seeing and visible > object. We think we see someone and are therefore > attached/angry with someone. But when we appreciate > and understand more and more that only visible object > is seen, it conditions more metta, less dosa, for > example. Are you angry with seeing? With hearing? -------- N: In India Kh Sujin said to me that when we are aware of and understand more that what appears through the six doors, of naama and ruupa, this in itself is a condition to become less interested in 'stories' about persons, about this or that event. I had heard this before, but I realize that I have to consider this more and more. There is no forcing not to think of concepts, but I understand that this will be the effect of satipatthana. I feel there is nothing forced or artifial about this. It can come naturally. This is food for thought, I find. I am not so far yet, I am far from realizing this, but I find it quite amazing what she said, and I feel that this must be right. It will condition less anger, more mettaa, I feel. Also less conceit. We do not think all the time: why is he saying unpleasant things to me? He and me, you know. Always he and me, what an amount of conceit. What is your feeling about this, Han? You consider things so much, I like to correspond with you. Nina. #78445 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma, to DC. nilovg Dear DC, I shall only take out a few points of your kind post to me. Op 7-nov-2007, om 14:24 heeft DC Wijeratna het volgende geschreven: > "But, as Kh Sujin often said: Abhidhamma is not in the book. It is > about the realities occurring now, and the > investigation of them helps us to better understand anattaa." > > Here several aspects to consider. > 1. As I mentioned above it is not Abhidhamma, it is dhamma. It is > part of the realization of the First Noble Truth. ---- N: All right we can call it abidhamma or dhamma, as you like. I do not attach to names. Right, understanding dhammas occurring now, their arising and falling away leads to understanding the first noble Truth. ------ > DC:The kind of investigation that you talk about is an > impossibility. In fact most of our actions are just habitual. When > you eat, how many millions of actions are there. Apart from > anlysing them, of how many you are aware of? ------- N: My awareness is poor, my understanding is weak. But it is not impossible to develop it. Provided there is enough listening and considering dhammas. The development needs the right conditions and these can be cultivated. -------- > DC: Look at it in another way, If somebody is trying to kill you, I > can imagine you sitting down calmly and analysing the conditions. > Well at this point, I would like to mention what the Buddha said > about dependent-origination. It is atakkaavacaro, cannot be known > by rational means, moreover, those engrossed in sensual pleasures > can't see it (raagarattaa na dakkhinti.) When Ven. Ananda told the > Buddha that he understand the DO, the Buddha said "maa heva.m > ananda, maa heva.m aananda. Don't say so Ananda, Don't say so, It > is because that both you and I couldn't understand this DO, that we > have been travelling in sa.msaara for a long long time." > > So Kh Sujin if she has understood it, she must claim that she is an > arahant or her statements are contrary to the Buddhas teaching, the > Dhamma. In fact the term for Dhamma is delusion (avijjaa or moha). -------- N: Fortunately we can begin to develop the Buddha's Path. He has taught for fortyfive years so that we can begin to develop it. Beginners are not arahats. Then it would be impossible to develop it, but it can be done. There can be more vijjaa so that there is less avijjaa. I really have confidence in this. ====== > > DC: There is another point I wish to mention. You can understand > anattaa only by the arahatta-magga. Really, if Kh Sujin thinks that > you can understand anattaa, without going through the full path to > its culmination, then she is talking about a Dhamma which has > nothing to do with the Buddha. ------ N: Again, we can begin to understand anatta. If we do not understand anatta at all we go the wrong way: we think of self, self who has pa~n~naa and can induce it, control it. Then there is no detachment and in reality the Path is a Path of detachment, detachment from the idea of self we hold so dearly. ------ > > DC:Dear Nina, I have no wish to argue with you anyone else. So > please treat all the above as a dispassionate analysis. N: I know you do not like to argue, neither do I. Different opinions like we hear on this forum help to consider more the issues of Dhamma. Thank you for your kind post which I appreciate, Nina. > #78446 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:47 am Subject: Re: sound. [dsg] Realities and Concepts (1) dcwijeratna Dear Nina, Many thanks for your e-m, which I have copied below. I have interspersed my comments Dear DC, Op 8-nov-2007, om 19:38 heeft DC Wijeratna het volgende geschreven: > But this is the most difficult to understand. When you are > listening (to Dhamma), object of your mind is sound. Then you say > the "object of citta is a concept". The citta has two objects at > the same time, so it appears. ------- >N: Citta experiences only one object at a time. Here citta EXPERIENCES in the ear-door process DC: If citta experiences it must be animate. A process is a 'Series of actions.' What is the 'series of actions' you are talking about? What are the different 'objects' of the citta. Meaningless words only. >N: and the immediately succeeding mind-door process, the citta EXPERIENCES sound. DC: Same comments as before. These are empty words-devoid of any meaning. >N: Later on, in different mind-door processes, the MEANING OF THE SOUND is known. DC: 'Later on': By how many nano-seconds, seconds, minutes, hours, days etc? What is the MEANING OF THE SOUND? Please give a definition for this expression. Again meaningless. And 'is known' by whom? by attaa? >N: Then citta KNOWS A CONCEPT formed up on account of having heard a sound. DC: Now the citta KNOWS. What is this citta that EXPERIENCES and KNOWS? Isn't it the same as we 'mere mortals' call the mind. Concept of what? You haven't defined it. >N: This happens all the time in our life, the whole day. DC: Agreed. I hear sounds all the time, well, not when I am asleep or when my attention is elsewhere. Remember you said "citta experiences only one object at a time." >N:The Abhidhamma teaches about daily life. DC: Yes, your kind of Abhidhamma. I pity the monks who wrote 7 books for this purpose. What about the stuff in the Dhammasa"nganii about lokottara bhuumi and so on? >N: It does not teach abstractions. DC: Yes, daily life (of mine) is real. Not an abstraction. At least 'DC' is not an abstraction. Thank you. Dear Nina, I have analysed the above to show you that I cannot understand you. Not to offend you. There is no emotional reaction on my part. Now don't misunderstand. I am not claiming that such feelings don't arise in me. But I try to control them because I have undertaken to observe the First Precept "Paa.naaitpaataa". It also implies, according to the teaching of the Buddha, the Dhamma, "sabbabhuuta hitaanukampaaya viharati." So if I cause you or have caused you the slightest 'domanassa' I apologise for that and beg for your forgivenness. I do not expect a reply for this. I shall avoid responding to any of your posts in the future. The Buddha, the Arahat, the Bhagavaa, had advised to avoid situations that may bring fear and danger to oneself. May you be well, enjoy long life and good health, DC D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #78447 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 12:49 pm Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) truth_aerator Dear Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Thanks for the reply. > > Me: "Concept of what?" > > A: "A perception of consiousnesses." > > Scott: Concept of a 'perception'? What do you mean by > 'consciousnesses' in the plural? >>> eye,ear,nose,tongue,body (tactile), mind consiousness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Scott: But what is 'sense' in your view? You say 'senses' are > 'perceptions (concept) based on consciousness'. You seem to be > describing exactly nothing. >>>>>>> For example a physical eye organ. It is a) visual & tactile perception. If there were no consiousness, there would be no perception (ie recognition, label) "this or that organ.". >>>>>> > If a perception is conceptual >>>>>> Perception (recognition, label) has to be conceptual. Consiousness is more direct, more functional. However word "consiousness" itself is a label (perception). >>>>>>>>>>> then you seem to believe, like it is in > the Beatles' 'Strawberry Fields Forever', 'nothing is real'. >>>>>>>> It depends on what you mean by word "real". Consiousness FUNCTIONS. So does perception, etc. However what lies behind them, we do not and cannot know. >>>>>>> In stating that '6 senses are dependently arisen' you seem to imply some > sort actuality to them. >>>>>>>>>>> Precisely because they do not have "existence from their own side" they are said to be Dependently Originated. >>>>>>>> > experience anything. Ruupa is not 'perception of certain > consciousness'. Do you meant that ruupa can be object of certain > consciousness? This would be correct. >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupa (as anything else) HAS to be perceived in order to be felt, experienced and talked about. Now, Rupa is an object of consiousness. We cannot separate rupa from consiousness. If it is separate from consiousness then how can we talk about it? If it is NOT separate than what the point of artificially making it something other than percieving consiousness? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This maintains the integrity > of the difference - a real one - between naama and ruupa. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In Buddha's teaching, strictly speaking it is incorrect to say "identity and difference". Every split second everything changes (perhaps billions of times) thus there is no absolute identity even of one thing (unless you artificially freeze it in artificial 'present'). If there is no absolute identity, then there is no absolute difference either since it requires 2 absolute identities to compare which ultimately do not exist outside of artifical 'present' moment of time. > A: "As someone (Sariputta to Mahakotthita?) has said: 6 senses is the > range of concepts, when 6 senses cease (in Parinibbnna) all concepts > cease as well." > > Scott: Well, I'm still not clear as to your meaning. Can I read the > sutta from which this is paraphrased? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I found the sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.174.than.html > A" "5 aggregates, 6 consiousness, DO, 4 NT, anicca-dukha-anatta, etc" > > Scott: What are the five aggregates? What are the six > consciousnesses? What is dependently originated? To what do the Four > Noble Truths refer? What is it that has these three characteristics? >>>>>>>> 5A & 6C are the world, the all. They are anicca-dukha-anatta. What lies behind them we do not and cannot know. They are result of past kamma, arisen dependently on causes and conditions. 5A fit very nicely into 6C's. 4NT refer to DO and everything dependently arisen. > A: "Dear Scott, please then briefly explain how could "ultimate > dhammas" act and be acted upon." > > Scott: They don't act. >>>>> If they don't act, then how do they arise? Fall? etc. That would be impossible since as you've said - "they don't act". Since they don't act, they are static... And you know where this leads... > > A: "As I understand it is seeing 4 NT without overlooking arising & > ceasing. It also means that one does not see non self as self, > pleasure as unpleasure, beauty where there isn't beauty, permance for > impermanence. Satipathana is "ekayano maggo" which develops LOTS of > panna." > > Scott: 'Seeing' - what 'sees'? How do you define satipa.t.thaana? > Of what does it consist in your view? > > Sincerely, > > Scott. >>>>>>>> In this case it was about Dhamma or Panna "eye" . Satipathana= seeing phenomenon a) as they are without adding or subtracting anything b) seeing it for what it is: DO process (and thus anicca-dukha- anatta). Consists of body-rupa skandha, feeling-vedana skandha, mind-vinnana skandha, mental qualities = sankhara+sanna skandhas. Lots of Metta, Alex #78448 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 7:52 am Subject: Re: sound. [dsg] Realities and Concepts (1) upasaka_howard Hi, DC (and Nina) - In a message dated 11/10/2007 2:47:42 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, dcwijeratna@... writes: Dear Nina, Many thanks for your e-m, which I have copied below. I have interspersed my comments Dear DC, Op 8-nov-2007, om 19:38 heeft DC Wijeratna het volgende geschreven: > But this is the most difficult to understand. When you are > listening (to Dhamma), object of your mind is sound. Then you say > the "object of citta is a concept". The citta has two objects at > the same time, so it appears. ------- >N: Citta experiences only one object at a time. Here citta EXPERIENCES in the ear-door process DC: If citta experiences it must be animate. A process is a 'Series of actions.' What is the 'series of actions' you are talking about? What are the different 'objects' of the citta. Meaningless words only. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Not necessarily meaningless, DC, but not being followed by you at the moment. I believe that the understanding is that consciousness switches back and forth among sense doors, being a hearing at one point, then a conceptualizing, and back again. ---------------------------------------------------------- >N: and the immediately succeeding mind-door process, the citta EXPERIENCES sound. DC: Same comments as before. These are empty words-devoid of any meaning. ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: As I understand it, in Buddhist psychology, a process is a stream of mind states taking the same object. Nina tends to speak of "cittas that experience", whereas I think it better to speak of cittas as "experiencings", i.e., as instances of experiencing. They aren't agents that experience - they are just instances of being conscious, just mental activities. When there is hearing there is consciousness of sound, and when there is seeing there is consciousness of a sight (or visible object). ----------------------------------------------------------- >N: Later on, in different mind-door processes, the MEANING OF THE SOUND is known. DC: 'Later on': By how many nano-seconds, seconds, minutes, hours, days etc? What is the MEANING OF THE SOUND? Please give a definition for this expression. Again meaningless. And 'is known' by whom? by attaa? -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: There need not be an agent who knows, but just the knowing. It is an event. --------------------------------------------------------- >N: Then citta KNOWS A CONCEPT formed up on account of having heard a sound. DC: Now the citta KNOWS. What is this citta that EXPERIENCES and KNOWS? Isn't it the same as we 'mere mortals' call the mind. Concept of what? You haven't defined it. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Citta = vi~n~nana = mind. A citta is not some "thing" that experiences and knows - it is an experiencing, an event. -------------------------------------------------------- >N: This happens all the time in our life, the whole day. DC: Agreed. I hear sounds all the time, well, not when I am asleep or when my attention is elsewhere. Remember you said "citta experiences only one object at a time." --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: The belief, and I think it is true, is that there is but one object of consciousness at any moment. -------------------------------------------------------- >N:The Abhidhamma teaches about daily life. DC: Yes, your kind of Abhidhamma. I pity the monks who wrote 7 books for this purpose. What about the stuff in the Dhammasa"nganii about lokottara bhuumi and so on? ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: DC, your question here isn't very clear to me, but I do sense it as not as kindly as it might be. --------------------------------------------------------- >N: It does not teach abstractions. DC: Yes, daily life (of mine) is real. Not an abstraction. At least 'DC' is not an abstraction. Thank you. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think 'DC' and 'Howard' really are abstractions as compared to the directly experienced thoughts, knowings, feelings, and emotions, etc upon which these ideas are based. ----------------------------------------------------- Dear Nina, I have analysed the above to show you that I cannot understand you. Not to offend you. There is no emotional reaction on my part. Now don't misunderstand. I am not claiming that such feelings don't arise in me. But I try to control them because I have undertaken to observe the First Precept "Paa.naaitpaataa". It also implies, according to the teaching of the Buddha, the Dhamma, "sabbabhuuta hitaanukampaaya viharati." So if I cause you or have caused you the slightest 'domanassa' I apologise for that and beg for your forgivenness. I do not expect a reply for this. I shall avoid responding to any of your posts in the future. The Buddha, the Arahat, the Bhagavaa, had advised to avoid situations that may bring fear and danger to oneself. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Sometimes it's hard to distinguish wise avoidance from aversion, don't you think? As for fear and danger, does Nina scare you? ;-) She's really not all that fearsome, you know! LOL! ----------------------------------------------------- May you be well, enjoy long life and good health, DC D. G. D. C. Wijeratna ========================= With metta, Howard #78449 From: "colette" Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:24 am Subject: Walking on Water, shallowness, status quo ksheri3 Good Day Alex, > A: "Anything that can be expressed is a concept..." > > colette: that'll be a good one to conted with, huh Alex? I'll support that that concept. lol ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Scott: So you think that everything is conceptual. You suggest that > > if it can be expressed then it is concept alone. I ask you: > Concept > > of what? > >>>>>> > > A perception of consiousnesses. > colette: thanx for the chance to escape since somebody had to eventually say such things. ALEX raise the issue of WHAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS although I can't say that Scott didn't play the pivotal part in this transaction. What we seem to all be focusing on is the question WHAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS and that is getting rather messy, dicey, here? I have no problems with the basic question, What is Consciousness, ... ---------------------------------------------- HERE YOU AND SCOTT GET INTO FOUNDATIONAL STUFF > >>>>>> > > Scott: What are the 6 senses? Are they concept? What goes beyond > > words and concepts following paranibbaana? > > >>>>>>> > 6 senses are dependently arisen. colette: I can go along with the "concept" of "dependent arising" here. Unfortunately you've opened the door for just the pranctster like myself to ask: WHAT GAVE RISE TO THEM what what the condition which gave them birth to rise, SINCE THEY ARE DEPENDENT(S)? Hark, do I hear CAUSES & CONDITIONS? Somehow I feel that when those delivery agents arrive their delivery will be short of what has been ordered. Which means that the delivery will have to be returned to sender, addressee unknown. It's not like pizza and pizza delivery. -------------------------------------- They aren't ultimate even though > they do fulfill functions. "eye, ear, nose, tongue, etc" are > perceptions (concept) based on consiousness. colette: Alex, aren't you contradicting yourself here? Before an individual can experience the sensation which would be a tactile sensation there has to be movement somewhere which interacts whith the consciousness or the ignorant consciousness of the believer. This is external interacting with the internal. Now we both find the consctruction of A CONSCIOUSNESS and that consciousness is subserviant to a lot of other potentials that have not yet arisen. This Dzogchen IS WORKING! You should see the what's flying by my "mind's eye" every second that I stay involved with this thought, alex's and scott's thoughts. ----------------------------------------- In fact we can say that > rupa is perception of certain consiousness (tactile, visual for > example) > colette: You could say that but SHUNYATA. GOTTA GO IN 10 SECON DS COLETTE #78450 From: "colette" Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A better way to discourage meditators! ksheri3 NO CHANCE, ENLIGHTENMENT IS A RESULTANT CONDITION AND CANNOT PRE- EXIST THE INDIVDUAL. > KO: One could only become enlighted only when defilements are > eradicated or destroy. See AN III, 100 according to Numercial > Discourses of the Buddha by B Bodhi. > colette: defilements are destroyed or eradicated only because they have been cognized and rationalized as being SUNYA, empty and therefore abandoned. ----------------------------- > If he wishes "by the destruction of that taints, may I in this very > life enter and dwell in the taintless liberation of the mind, > liberation by wisdowm, realizing it for myself with direct knowledge" > > Suppression is for worldings that achieve the base of neither > preception nor non preception. Eradication is meant for the Noble > ones. colette: only 1 min. left. I LOVE THIS REPLY YOU'VE GIVEN BUT NEED TIME TO DWELL ON IT. Yea, there is a difference between teh worldlings and those that have seen, experienced, bliss, extasy, ect. \ colette #78451 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 2:11 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Anatta of "Self" and the World dacostacharles Dear Alex, I must apologize, I needed some one to have a good educated/challenging conversation with; and only you were brave enough to byte (the others know me already). I am back to sitting home all day with not much interesting/challenging to do (still unemployed and it is back to bugging me). I was preparing to cut three ways (approaching the subject from 3 different angles at the same time) -- yes I was using the Diamond sutra in one hand, and some thing more down to earth in the other (a Tantric view); and then the 3rd, well you almost got it too (90% of it) - it was more based on a Theravadan view of the sutras. I was just waiting for the right statements or questions to pounce and use that blade of the sword too. THIS IS ALL DRIVEN BY: craving for entertainment ! I really liked how you answered the first question (i.e., Was the Buddha deluded too while he lived?); so much that I am going to repeat it (to make sure it is saved more than once - for posterity - well with a slight twist): After The Buddha's Awakening, he had no more delusion. But he DID HAVE left-over-kamma, which propelled his existence like a car moving at high speed will continue moving for a while even after it has ran out of fuel. And then, His Awakening caused Him to be propelled by a new fuel, the following 3 things: Wisdom, Compassion, Energy/power/concentration (what ever you want to call it). I had to laugh and stop when you said, "There is stress... its origin, its cessation and path leading to cessation. Regardless of 'existential status', when your hair is on fire, WHAT WILL NEED TO BE DONE?". This is the basis of the Therevadan view, "what needs to be done!" not so much "what is, and what is not" - this is just philosophy. The philosophy makes of a good conversation piece. That and $2.00 might get you and someone else, a cup of coffee and some .. My problem with the standard "No-such-thing-as-a-self" philosophy you find here on DSG, is as follows, you might loose sight of you. No, the real you! After all, "What needs to be done" might never get done "if You don't take the time to do it." I also liked your answer to my second question (i.e., . is it more delusional to see a book, and convince yourself that what you see is not real?): "The Buddha taught 'What is to be Done?' rather than 'What is the ground of all being?'" This also highlights the difference between the two approaches (schools .) - Mahayana and Hinayana (or what ever they call it). We have to do more then just put out all the fires of: greed, anger and delusion. There is also the 5 worldly concerns, the 8 ., and .. Charles DaCosta PS: GOOD LUCK! _____ #78452 From: han tun Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] to Han.Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (7) hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your kind note. I also feel very comfortable and happy discussing with you. You are kind and gentle and you know my sentiments. I am still full of kilesas. I have a lot of conceit and I am easily provoked. If someone pushes me I want to rebel. For example, when someone tells me what I am saying are “stories” it really annoys me. But you are different. I fully agree with you what you have just written. At the Meeting what I wanted to say was: with every consciousness there is one of the three feelings. If any one of them, either pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain, arises, we should listen to the Buddha’s teachings in MN 148. “If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure, one does not relish it, welcome it, or remain fastened to it, then one's passion-obsession doesn't get obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of pain, one does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, beat one's breast or become distraught, then one's resistance obsession doesn't get obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one discerns, as it actually is present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, & escape from that feeling, then one's ignorance-obsession doesn't get obsessed. That a person — through abandoning passion-obsession with regard to a feeling of pleasure, through abolishing resistance-obsession with regard to a feeling of pain, through uprooting ignorance-obsession with regard to a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, through abandoning ignorance and giving rise to clear knowing — would put an end to suffering & stress in the here & now: such a thing is possible.” But it didn’t come to that. It became just an argument between me and the rest – I insisting *any one of the three*, and the rest insisting that for the four consciousness it is *equanimity*. So my original intention of introducing this topic was lost. Respectfully, Han #78453 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 2:27 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Buddha Gotama, a Once Returner? dacostacharles Hi Alex, Buddha is still alive and on earth (in the mind's of all who . him); however, The Buddha never said he was: the almighty, all knowing, every where at one time, . Therefore he can't enlighten us, he can't even teach all. If he could, the whole Universe would have been already enlighten from his first dispensation. > > I guess that is why we have to stay focused on what is important: Yes!!!! 4 Noble Truths!! N8P!!!! 37 wings to awakening!!! AND don't forget this present moment - really experience it - You be fully aware! > Charles DaCosta #78454 From: Elaine Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhism & War shennieca Hi Rahula, Chapter 25 of The Mahavamsa, The Great Chronicle of Sri Lanka, is composed in the late 5th or early 6th Century CE, by Ven. Mahanama Thera. These stories have to be taken with a pinch of salt, imo. Killing is absolutely prohibited in Buddhism, it is breaking the first precept. Buddhist people go to war in self-defense. There is No war fought in the name of Buddhism (war is fought for political reasons). If someone is attacking you, you can protect yourself in self-defense (according to the vinaya rule, I think). But attacking another person or another country for whatever other reasons is not allowed. How do you explain these passages to non-Buddhists? Tell them these passages are not Buddha vacana, it is someone's composition. If they want to learn Buddhism, start from reading the Nikayas. Hope that helps. Best wishes, Elaine #78455 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:44 pm Subject: Re: Walking on Water, shallowness, status quo truth_aerator Hi Colette, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > > Good Day Alex, > > ALEX raise the issue of WHAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS although I can't say > that Scott didn't play the pivotal part in this transaction. What we > seem to all be focusing on is the question WHAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS and > that is getting rather messy, dicey, here? I have no problems with > the basic question, What is Consciousness, ... >>>>> Consiousness cognizes. > > > colette: I can go along with the "concept" of "dependent arising" > here. Unfortunately you've opened the door for just the pranctster > like myself to ask: WHAT GAVE RISE TO THEM what what the condition > which gave them birth to rise, SINCE THEY ARE DEPENDENT(S)? >>>>>>> There are causes and conditions + label/perception (sanna) of them. "Nothing (as in atta or sabhava)" arises and "nothing" ceases. Indivisible particles CANNOT be found. > They aren't ultimate even though > > they do fulfill functions. "eye, ear, nose, tongue, etc" are > > perceptions (concept) based on consiousness. > > colette: Alex, aren't you contradicting yourself here? Before an > individual can experience the sensation which would be a tactile > sensation there has to be movement somewhere >>>>>>> "there has to be movement somewhere" is a CONCEPT. Before there is consiousness, we cannot cognize anything as (existent or not, both, neither). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which interacts whith > the consciousness or the ignorant consciousness of the believer. This > is external interacting with the internal. >>>>>>>>>> external or internal - these both are CONCEPTS. Not self existent features. >>>>>>>>> Now we both find the > consctruction of A CONSCIOUSNESS and that consciousness is > subserviant to a lot of other potentials that have not yet arisen. > This Dzogchen IS WORKING! You should see the what's flying by > my "mind's eye" every second that I stay involved with this thought, > alex's and scott's thoughts. > ----------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> Consiousness is the most basic fact of experience. Lots of Metta, Alex #78456 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 4:13 pm Subject: Re: Anatta of "Self" and the World truth_aerator Hi Charles, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Charles DaCosta" wrote: > > > My problem with the standard "No-such-thing-as-a-self" philosophy you find > here on DSG, is as follows, you might loose sight of you. No, the real you! > After all, "What needs to be done" might never get done "if You don't take > the time to do it." >>>>>> This is the problem of the "Missing arahants" (a subject I am contemplating to write or not). Buddha has NEVER recommended replacing "I have a self" with "There is no self for me" (or I have no self). Infact when he was asked point- blank (by vachagotta if memory serves correctly), he refused to answer. One cannot become even a sotapanna if one keeps thinking in 2 extremes (there is a self or there isn't. Check the kaccanagota sutta &mn2) ----------- "This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?' "As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress. " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html ------- A person must meditate according to satipathana framework. It involves not adding and not substracting anything to the frame of reference one is focusing on. Before one doesn't remove the hindrances, "no self" can be just another "crazy wisdom" or desiring for not- becoming. Buddha taught becoming and being ( a process, rather than static and frozen entity or non entity). Through direct experience (if we go literally, it requires 4th Jhana) one realizes the truth of anatta WITHOUT HINDRANCES TO TWIST IT TO FIT ONES LIKES. The thing is that we are not so much philosophically unsophisticated but rather because we are under defilements. Before the defilements are temporary gone, even the best advice (such as anatta teaching) will be misconstrued. Ego, Conceit belief can be used for good purposes such as trying to become arahant faster than someone else. Disarming oneself too quickly before reaching certain stages can be very dangerous... Buddha always started his graded talk on virtue (appealing to ego of the listeners) and only when they were ready he taught "meat and potatoes" (4NT, Anicca-Dukha-Anatta). Eventually when on reaches parinibbana, "existence,non-existence, both, neither" will not apply. Lots of Metta, Alex #78457 From: Elaine Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] To Nina - with metta and respect shennieca Hello Nina, This is going to be a long post. I hope you won’t misinterpret what I am going to say. First, I want to thank you for teaching us the Abhidhamma. I feel fortunate to ‘know’ you because it is a rare opportunity to meet with an Abhidhamma teacher. I hope we will both accumulate merits from learning and sharing the dhamma. In my opinion, the things that are written in the Abhidhamma are experienced only by the Arahants, only the Buddha can experience the entire range of the Abhidhamma. When we read the Abhidhamma, it tells us the ‘technical things’ that happen in our conscious mind. As mere worldlings, we cannot pick these cittas out one-by-one and analyze them and say we truly understand them. In the Milinda Panha, Nagasena told King Milinda that the study of the separation of these citta is even more difficult than going to the ocean, and scooping up some ocean water in your hands and identifying where this water come from, saying, this water is from the Ganges and this is from the Ramuna. The identification and separation of the citta and cetasika in the mind, is far, far, more difficult than identifying the ocean water. Only a Buddha can do single-cittas and cetasikas identification. Therefore, whatever the abhidhamma book says, we can only take it as theory if we don’t have personal experience of it. ‘If’ our teacher is not enlightened and s/he teaches the students using the Abhidhamma book as a guide, it is like the blind-leading-the-blind. I really do believe that everything in the Abhidhamma is true but I take it on blind-faith. Why blind-faith? It is because I have no direct-experience of these individual citta and cetasika yet. Reading the sutta is a different from reading the abhidhamma because the things that are written in the suttas are far, far more easily verifiable by ordinary human beings, compared to the Abhidhamma. The suttas are written like an advice to human beings. I really like Rahulovada sutta because our Lord Buddha personally taught his son that sutta. Studying the Abhidhamma is useful, but only to a certain extent. Merely reading and considering the Abhidhamma is not enough to ‘condition’ us to Nibbana. There are other conditions that are necessary as well, especially right concentration and right mindfulness. Why is ‘reading and considering’ not enough for enlightenment? It is because we need the ‘experience’ condition. Buddhism is the Most special religion on earth, it is an Experiential religion. Experiential means that, whatever that is said in the Suttas and Abhidhamma can be experienced by every one. It doesn’t matter whether that person is rich or poor, smart or dumb, high or low caste, they all can experience the truth in the Buddha’s words, they all can get enlightened. And this experience definitely does not come from reading and considering words only. It has to be experienced with our minds. When you stress on ‘considering the dhamma’ for e.g. when someone says something nasty to you and you ‘think and know’ these nasty things as concepts, this is only a temporary ‘suppression’ of akusala feelings from arising. It requires ‘some concentration’ for you to do this suppression. Even though it is a temporary suppression, it is still good because it won’t propel you to start an argument with the other person. What I’m actually trying to say is, I don’t want to sound morbid, but when a person is very sick and dying, s/he usually does not have enough energy to arouse the concentration to suppress these akusala feelings from arising. What can be done at this time is to be Mindful and know these feelings as akusala or kusala (this was taught to me by my teacher, Ven. Sujiva). That’s why we have to take some time in our daily life to be mindful, mindful of the breath and other satipatthana objects. The nature of dukkha, anicca and anatta is in our body, in the breath. We cannot gain insight wisdom from reading the Abhidhamma books alone. Buddhism is not a scholastic study. Buddhism Is a way of life. Please accept this as my effort of sharing the Dhamma with you. If I have offended you in any way, I apologize. You are a dhamma teacher and I respect you. Thank you. Sadhu! With metta and respect, Elaine #78458 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:15 pm Subject: last perfections: nov 07 nichiconn dear friend, you write me off-list, but let me quote nina, *: "It will be appreciated if you can add anything." *{#78221: In India it was stressed several times that the akusala dhamma that is not known as it is, through awareness and direct understanding, cannot be eradicated. This is a serious warning. If we do not know when there is wrong view of self, it cannot be eradicated. So many moments of cittas that take seeing for my seeing, or hearing for my hearing pass unnoticed. The perfection of truthfulness is indispensable.} -we come now to to the part:* play on celestial musicians. i appreciate many things, bleakly. life is a crapshoot. never mind the picturesque overspray. not so much as a speck! is that dukkha? i think about war, what buddhas advocate is it's utter destruction. peace. what is despondency? how do i appreciate "a serious warning"? it is not that someone chooses to live or die. vsm, cscd bk2, Icchitaalaabho 551. Yampiccha.m na labhatiiti ettha <>ti-aadiisu (dii. ni. 2.398; vibha. 201) alabbhaneyyavatthuusu icchaava yampiccha.m na labhati, tampi dukkhanti vuttaa. PPn: [(xi) Not To Get What One Wants] xvi, 56. Not to get what one wants: the want itself of some unobtainable object (expressed) in such passages as 'Oh, that we were not subject to birth!' (Vbh.101) is called suffering since one does not get what is wanted. PoP: As to "the not getting of what is wished for" - the wish to have some impossible thing as in such expressions as, "Good would it be were we not subject to birth!" {Vibha"nga, p.101} is said to be "the not getting of what is wished for is ill." there is more, connie. #78459 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:43 pm Subject: resuming study nichiconn dear Alyssa, good to hear about abhidhamma instructions. please say more when there is an occasion. for some of us, i think dsg must be the closest we get to any formal gathering. in any event, i keep wondering about a sentence from http://www.musicnorth.com/currentmfm.html = This process cleansed my kamma. peace, connie #78460 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 8:22 pm Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Thanks for the reply: Me: "But what is 'sense' in your view? You say 'senses' are 'perceptions (concept) based on consciousness'. You seem to be describing exactly nothing." A: "For example a physical eye organ. It is a) visual & tactile perception." Scott: The 'eye' you describe is not the 'eye' of 'eye consciousness'. Check out pasaada ruupa. You are referring to a piece of meat too large and unwieldy to be 'eye consciousness'. A: "If there were no consiousness, there would be no perception (ie recognition, label) 'this or that organ.'." Scott: If visible object, pasaada ruupa, and eye-consciousness did not coincide, there would be no seeing. A: "Perception (recognition, label) has to be conceptual. Consiousness is more direct, more functional. However word "consiousness" itself is a label (perception)." Scott: Thinking about an object of 'perception' is conceptual. A: "It depends on what you mean by word "real". Consiousness FUNCTIONS. So does perception, etc. However what lies behind them, we do not and cannot know." Scott: This is mysticism, this 'what lies behind them'. I'm afraid I don't follow you. There is nothing behind them. A: "Precisely because they do not have 'existence from their own side' they are said to be Dependently Originated." Scott: If they 'do not have existence from their own side', what are they? A: "Rupa (as anything else) HAS to be perceived in order to be felt, experienced and talked about." Scott: Okay... A: "Now, Rupa is an object of consiousness. We cannot separate rupa from consiousness." Scott: Are you saying naama and ruupa are identical? Are they not two separate realities? Pa.t.thaana clarifies this very clearly: "20. Dissociation Condition. (i) The material states are related to the immaterial states by dissociation condition. (ii) The immaterial states are related to the material states by dissociation condition." A: "If it is separate from consiousness then how can we talk about it? If it is NOT separate than what the point of artificially making it something other than percieving consiousness?" Scott: I'm sorry but I'm not following you here. Aren't we discussing ruupa and naama? All perception is naama. Are you saying that ruupa is artificially created by mind? A: "In Buddha's teaching, strictly speaking it is incorrect to say "identity and difference". Every split second everything changes (perhaps billions of times) thus there is no absolute identity even of one thing (unless you artificially freeze it in artificial 'present'). If there is no absolute identity, then there is no absolute difference either since it requires 2 absolute identities to compare which ultimately do not exist outside of artifical 'present' moment of time." Scott: I'm sorry but this is incomprehensible. Are you saying that two wrongs don't make a right? Or are you now suggesting that there are paramattha dhammas? When you say 'everything changes' to what are you referring? A: "I found the sutta..." Thanks, Alex. A: "...What lies behind them we do not and cannot know. They are result of past kamma, arisen dependently on causes and conditions." Scott: Again I really have no clue what you are referring to with the 'what lies behind them'. Any chance of a clarification? A: "If they don't act, then how do they arise? Fall? etc. That would be impossible since as you've said - "they don't act". Since they don't act, they are static... And you know where this leads..." Scott: Alex, you are all over the map. To assert now that dhammas act is to fly in the face of all you've been saying about 'sabhava particles' (and I don't even know what you are saying about 'sabhava particles' but I think it would have to do with how they cannot be little actors wouldn't it - I hate to carry both sides of a discussion here.) Can you please clarify? This is getting murky. That a dhamma arises, is present, and falls away is not to say it 'acts' it is to say that this is the nature of things. A: "In this case it was about Dhamma or Panna 'eye'." Scott: Do you mean pa~n~naa cetasika? A: "Satipathana= seeing phenomenon a) as they are without adding or subtracting anything b) seeing it for what it is: DO process (and thus anicca-dukha- anatta). Consists of body-rupa skandha, feeling-vedana skandha, mind-vinnana skandha, mental qualities = sankhara+sanna skandhas." Scott: Um, this is a wee bit confusing Alex. Sorry. I can't follow this. Any chance of a clarification here as well? We might want to revisit the original question. This is really losing focus. Sincerely, Scott. #78461 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 8:40 pm Subject: Re: sound. [dsg] Realities and Concepts (1) dcwijeratna Dear Howard, Many thanks for your e-m. I enjoyed reading that and wisht to discuss it further. Today I'll give my response to the last comment about fear and danger. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ------ Howard: Sometimes it's hard to distinguish wise avoidance from aversion, don't you think? As for fear and danger, does Nina scare you? ;-) She's really not all that fearsome, you know! LOL! ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ----- DC: Yes, that is the nature of kilesa's. That is why there is avijjaa in us. There is a fantastic book (unfortunately in Sinhala). It is called "Deceiving dhammas". The book is by Rerukaane Chandavimala. Foremost abhidhammika of the last century in Sri Lanka. I look at at this way: You want to avoid something because there is aversion or (vyaapaada). Then one of the methods to avoid that is to get out of that situation and not to fall into it again. This is what we do all our life. Isn't it? If I touch an ember and it burns my hand, I won't touch it again. If I see it again there is fear in me. This is how I practice. When an incident like that has occurred, I reflect thus, when the aversion has subsided. (1) Aversion had arisen in me. Dosa, one of the three roots of evil. Under the influence of that dosa, I had done some paapakamma. (2) Since I want to avoid "paapa", what do I do in the future? I try to find a method to avoid such situations. (3) In this case, it is very easy to stop talking--Both parties are better off. So that is how it happened. The moment your reflect on (1) and realise that you have collected paapa and that was not very skilful (kusala as an adjective), at that moment your aversio is gone. You have to try it and see whether it is true or not. For me it happens that way. When I started writing there was anger in me (this is the vyaapaada niivaran.a). As I went on writing, my mind moved away from that started concentrating on what I was writing and the niivarana vanished. So looking back I thought I might have been little sharp. Hence, I wrote all that. Really, I have lot of karunaa for Nina. So every word I wrote in that paragraph was that. This method of analysis I have learnt from Sabbaasavasutta-MN 2 (I think). Here is some thing for you to have a good laugh: "When I use a word," Humpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less." --Lewis Caroll, Through the Looking Glass Kind regards, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna P. S. Is your field (computer) software or hardware? #78462 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 8:41 pm Subject: for the record nichiconn dear off-line friend, the window was closed before I got off work, so it'll be monday before I go to the post office again. books, books, books... antici, pation. you know the rocky horror picture show? "time is fleeting, madness takes its toll". I had a joke for you: is it belly lint or is it ____. (a taco?) I just mean about the general agreement: considering the rise and fall of a sentence makes as much sense as watching a belly. no joke: where is buddhaghosa now? the reliquiairy. maybe already a porana, not to be confused with little fish. I blather. I don't mean to seem stupid, but what's a simpleton to do? "things are never what they seem". they are what they were in passing, it seems, but how are 'things' determined? uh, what's determination, man? about the maharishi? mahesh? yogi? TM, inc., etc. BiFocal. That means a person is like a cow? I just mention it because I don't want to be held accountable to any actual consent by silence here. not that anyone's asking. the fantastic four were/are buddhist, but "how can I be sure? in a world that's constantly changing, ." sorry, carried away again, where do we stand? peace, dude. #78463 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:24 pm Subject: Re: sound. [dsg] Realities and Concepts (1) sarahprocter... Dear DC, (Howard & all), --- DC Wijeratna wrote: > DC: ... There is a fantastic book (unfortunately in Sinhala). It is called "Deceiving dhammas". The book is by Rerukaane Chandavimala. >Foremost abhidhammika of the last century in Sri Lanka. .... S: I'm glad you appreciate the book. Another friend from Sri Lanka helped to translate it for us. When we asked more about the source, he wrote this: Gayan: "The Pali is from the Nettippakaranaatthakatha, The 'vangceti's only appear there ( and nowhere else)even there its only as just small phrases without explanations. examples and notes are from a sri lankan monk who was well versed in all three pitakas.[ven. R. chandavimala(1897-1997)]" .... S: Familiarity with the ancient commentaries and Abhidhamma Pitaka can lead to such gems being revealed:-). Here are some examples of the 'Cheating (va~ncaka) dhammas: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/3543 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/3544 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/3545 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/10517 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/72645 **** S: Did Rerukaane Chandavimala write other books you can tell us about? Can you give some more examples of your own (or your friends)on cheating (va~ncaka) dhammas? Helpful for daily life. Metta, Sarah ========= #78464 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 4:41 pm Subject: Re: sound. [dsg] Realities and Concepts (1) upasaka_howard Hi, DC - In a message dated 11/10/2007 11:41:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, dcwijeratna@... writes: Dear Howard, Many thanks for your e-m. I enjoyed reading that and wisht to discuss it further. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: That would be great. :-) -------------------------------------------------------- Today I'll give my response to the last comment about fear and danger. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ------ Howard: Sometimes it's hard to distinguish wise avoidance from aversion, don't you think? As for fear and danger, does Nina scare you? ;-) She's really not all that fearsome, you know! LOL! ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ----- DC: Yes, that is the nature of kilesa's. That is why there is avijjaa in us. There is a fantastic book (unfortunately in Sinhala). It is called "Deceiving dhammas". The book is by Rerukaane Chandavimala. Foremost abhidhammika of the last century in Sri Lanka. I look at at this way: You want to avoid something because there is aversion or (vyaapaada). Then one of the methods to avoid that is to get out of that situation and not to fall into it again. This is what we do all our life. Isn't it? If I touch an ember and it burns my hand, I won't touch it again. If I see it again there is fear in me. -------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, this is the norm of our lives. When a situation promotes unwholesome reactions, and when there is no other recourse, I agree that avoiding the situation is appropriate. I also think, however, that the main problem always lies in ourselves more than in the situation and that the best recourse is internal work rather than avoidance if possible. With relinquishment of clinging to views, especially as regards interactions on discussion groups, and a growth in mindfulness and equanimity, I think that the last resort of avoidance need not be a resort at all. But that's something to work towards. It's not easy. And, being realistic, it is often the case that avoidance is the better part of valor. -------------------------------------------------------------- This is how I practice. When an incident like that has occurred, I reflect thus, when the aversion has subsided. (1) Aversion had arisen in me. Dosa, one of the three roots of evil. Under the influence of that dosa, I had done some paapakamma. (2) Since I want to avoid "paapa", what do I do in the future? I try to find a method to avoid such situations. (3) In this case, it is very easy to stop talking--Both parties are better off. So that is how it happened. -------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, at times (3) makes sense, for a while anyway. But I don't see it as an ultimate solution. ------------------------------------------------------------ The moment your reflect on (1) and realise that you have collected paapa and that was not very skilful (kusala as an adjective), at that moment your aversio is gone. You have to try it and see whether it is true or not. For me it happens that way. ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, yes - mindfulness and insight in action. As I see it, repetitions of that lead to an eventual easing of the difficulty, so that avoidance is not required. ------------------------------------------------------- When I started writing there was anger in me (this is the vyaapaada niivaran.a). As I went on writing, my mind moved away from that started concentrating on what I was writing and the niivarana vanished. So looking back I thought I might have been little sharp. Hence, I wrote all that. Really, I have lot of karunaa for Nina. So every word I wrote in that paragraph was that. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I think it is wonderful that you had this insightful introspection, and I'm certainly happy that your mind was filled with compassion. :-) ------------------------------------------------------ This method of analysis I have learnt from Sabbaasavasutta-MN 2 (I think). ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: A great sutta - I haven't looked at it for a long time. I have now bookmarked it. I particularly liked the following early overview paragraph that sums up the techniques of relinquishment discussed in the sutta: - - - - - - - The Blessed One said, "Monks, the ending of the fermentations is for one who knows & sees, I tell you, not for one who does not know & does not see. For one who knows what & sees what? Appropriate attention & inappropriate attention. When a monk attends inappropriately, unarisen fermentations arise, and arisen fermentations increase. When a monk attends appropriately, unarisen fermentations do not arise, and arisen fermentations are abandoned. There are fermentations to be abandoned by seeing, those to be abandoned by restraining, those to be abandoned by using, those to be abandoned by tolerating, those to be abandoned by avoiding, those to be abandoned by destroying, and those to be abandoned by developing. - - - - - - - I do agree that avoidance is one of the techniques discussed. But different approaches are suggested for different circumstances, and I do think that great care needs to be taken in deciding whether the technique of avoidance is being adopted out of wise consideration or out of aversion. It isn't always obvious, I believe. -------------------------------------------------------- Here is some thing for you to have a good laugh: "When I use a word," Humpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less." --Lewis Caroll, Through the Looking Glass ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: LOL! He was a mathematician, you know! ;-)) ---------------------------------------------------------- Kind regards, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna P. S. Is your field (computer) software or hardware? ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I'm retired now. My field was primarily mathematics. As far as research and publication, my work was in mathematical logic, theory of logic programming, theory of computation, and, a bit more practically, document image processing and network analysis. As for my teaching, I taught courses in discrete structures, data structures, graph algorithms, analysis of algorithms, theory of computation, and logic programming. Earlier in my career, I also taught calculus. ============================ With metta, Howard #78465 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:11 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) kenhowardau Hi Dieter and Tep, --------------- <. . .> 'KH: > > (3) parinibbana means the final cessation of all khandhas (including consciousness). > > D: > yes.. I would be quite surprised to find a strange statement like above to be said/written by the Venerable ---------------- In what way is it strange? ----------------------- KH: > > But that is not so! There seems to be a large proportion of Buddhists who believe in an eternal soul. (Although they prefer not to call it by that name.) D: I don't think so.. certainly a large proportion of Buddhists accept the samsaric reality but hope and believe they may be able to be free of it by the guidance of the Dhamma and realize nibbana ..somewhere in future... ---------------------- Before my Abhidhamma-studies began I would have shared those sentiments, but now I shy away from that kind of language. It gives the impression of a lasting soul, or self, that is now unfree and will later be free. ------------------------------------ <. . .> D: > yes , we can and we should consider and discuss (Dhamma-Vicaya) and probably give the Venerable or his students a chance to comment if possible before judgement . Do I remember correctly that a DSG member wrote a complaint to the owner of accesstoinsight ..? ----------------------------------- Yes, but it wasn't about this kind of thing. James had a discussion with them on another matter. I don't think they would be prepared to discuss Abhidhamma. There is no Abhidhamma Pitaka material on their site and they say they intend to keep it that way. I read somewhere that, in their opinion, the Abhidhamma is not helpful to meditation. That was some time ago; I don't know if that specific comment in still there. ------------------------------- KH: > > > <. . .> #34543 <. . .> As for interpretations of Thanissaro's writings, please look at another old post of mine - 34782 - and tell me what you think. D: I will do .. but perhaps we have a start for exchange already .. ;-) -------------------------------- I'd be grateful if you and Tep would have a quick look at them (and at the other posts Sarah mentioned). I won't have much computer time over the next couple of days, so there's no hurry. :-) Ken H #78466 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:21 pm Subject: How to track down Pali (for Scott or Connie) philofillet Hi Scott or Connie You guys seem to be really good at tracking down the Pali of suttas. Could I ask you to give me a little workshop on how to do it so I don't have to keep asking? For example, I'm really interested these days in AN IX,5, ("Fivefold Freedom from Fear") from BB's anthology, and I'd like to know the difference in the Pali used for these parts... "...the things which are wholesome/unwholesome are held to be wholesome/unwholesome, the things which are blameworthy/blameless are held to be blameworthy/blameless, the things which are dark/bright are held to be dark/bright..." I'd like to know more about the difference in meanings in those three pairs. Could you guide me through the process of looking it up. I've been shown a website that gives Pali for suttas, but I couldn't figure out how to match its classification/numbering to the books I have. Once we find the Pali, is there an online dictionary we can use to find out more about each word? Thanks, whenever you have time. No hurry. :) Metta, Phil #78467 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:18 pm Subject: happy fall nichiconn ah, here, for alex, maybe: a bit on cause: from "the book of analysis, p.133: #203" <...craving when arising where does it arise; when settling where does it settle? Whatever in the world is a lovely thing, pleasant thing; herein this craving when arising arises; herein when settling settles. In the world ear. :P: In the world nose. In the world tongue. In the world body. In the world mind is a lovely thing, pleasant thing; herein this craving when arising arises; herein when settling settles.> where P = Complete each as first example. and there are several paragraphs devoted to a lot of :P:ing the various things of the world. objects, consciousness. rise and fall. conjunctions... well, contact. feeling, perception, volition concerning objects. and then the scary one: << In the world craving .. is a lovely thing, pleasant thing; herein... >> and it continues on to our lovely, pleasant thinking and examination of 'things'. not where does arising arise, but what is born of/on that arising; & inevitable, "settling" of what had arisen to perish. craving arises. that's the main thing, not whether arising arises, but the dust in the wind. << Craving. This is called the cause of suffering. >> (p.139, #206 BoA). a final quote: p.151 -- Three truths are with cause. The truth of cessation is without cause. peace, connie #78468 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] To Nina - with metta and respect nilovg Dear Elaine, Thank you for your long post. You are never offensive, do not worry. Op 11-nov-2007, om 3:13 heeft Elaine het volgende geschreven: > In my opinion, the things that are written in the Abhidhamma are > experienced only by the Arahants, only the Buddha can experience > the entire range of the Abhidhamma. ------ N: We ordinary people cannot experience all that is in the Abhidhamma. By the way I am not a teacher, but a student. I agree with many things you write: it is experience that is important. Before we continue, may I ask you a question? When you help others, parents or friends, do you notice also that sometimes you have enthusiasm and happy feeling when doing so, and at other times there is no such happy feeling, but you know that you have to do your duty? Nina. #78469 From: "matt roke" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:19 am Subject: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) mattroke Dear All, This is a reply to something I saw written by Elaine quite a few days ago and I think it is a view shared by others on DSG. I have not had a chance to read all the comments on DSG, so my apologies if I am repeating anything others have said since that posting by Elaine. Elaine: Oh wow! I think you have captured the whole essence of DSG perfectly. The DSG notion of the "no-I" and the "no-doing" is contradictory from the actual real life stuffs that they are actually doing. They are sitting at the PC typing, thinking and doing things. Yet they are saying "no-I" and "no-doing". It is as if there is this mystical "not-I" that is "not doing", did some things on their behalf. Matt: DSG people do things; they make decisions, they go to Dhamma talks, they write letters on line, they choose what to eat, places to travel to, jobs they do and friends they visit, etc. However, they appreciate that the dhammas that are rising and falling away when they choose to do those things or when they are doing those things are not in their control and they are too numerous for there to be a choice as to what dhamma will arise next. We can appreciate the speed that realities arise and fall away by observing how quickly we can respond to spoken words when we are having a conversation with another person in our mother language. There is sound, interpretation of what that sound means and then a response. This is happening incredibly fast, and while it happens there are also other sounds, sights, touch, (and maybe) smells and tastes arising and falling away followed in each case by thinking, which creates concepts of what was experienced through those sense doors. It is not our choice that there are 6 sense doors. We did not choose what will arise at the sense doors. We do not know what the next dhamma moment will be and we do not know which sense door it will arise at. And we cannot stop that which has arisen from falling away. The reason we think we control situations is because realities arise and fall away to create concepts, and these concepts give the impression that we can do things. It is due to ignorance if there are only concepts and no understanding of dhammas that make up concepts. Clinging to concepts, particularly the idea that there is a self, is an obstacle to insight into the true nature of realities and the understanding of no self. Even if we only intellectually understand that concepts are realities that arise and fall away immediately, we can appreciate that there is no one that controls those realities; there is no one who makes them arise and there is no one who can prevent them from falling away. People who do not have the opportunity to hear Dhamma or the inclination to learn about Dhamma, think that they have control over what they do and they think there is a self who does things. When we investigate the true nature of realities we will appreciate that there are only conditioned dhammas arising and falling away, which we have no control over. These dhammas do not last, they are unsatisfactory because they do not last and there is no self to be found in any of these dhammas. Because there are only dhammas and concepts are not real, where is the person or *I* who does things? When we hear the Dhamma we act in accordance to how we interpret it. But, there is no one who chooses to act in this or that way. Had the Dhamma not been heard then that act would not take place. Having heard the Dhamma, however, is the condition that makes the action come about. Matt #78470 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:44 am Subject: Re: sound. [dsg] Realities and Concepts (1) nilovg Dear DC and Howard, Please, do not worry that you would offend me or cause me to have dosa. Even when someone is sharp, really, this shows his interest and how could I mind? I am grateful to Howard for his help in explaining. Everyone prefers his own wording and explains things in his own way. A forum is so good, because different ways of explaining can be helpful to different people. There are different opinions, different outlooks, but we all respect each other, even when the debate may be heated. That is why I like this forum. I do not mind when someone would say that I have wrong view. This is true. Since I am not a sotaapanna I have not eradicated wrong view. For that reason I shall not tell someone else: you have wrong view. What about myself? Op 10-nov-2007, om 20:47 heeft DC Wijeratna het volgende geschreven: > I have analysed the above to show you that I cannot understand you. > Not to offend you. There is no emotional reaction on my part. Now > don't misunderstand. I am not claiming that such feelings don't > arise in me. But I try to control them because I have undertaken to > observe the First Precept "Paa.naaitpaataa". It also implies, > according to the teaching of the Buddha, the Dhamma, "sabbabhuuta > hitaanukampaaya viharati." > So if I cause you or have caused you the slightest 'domanassa' I > apologise for that and beg for your forgivenness. --------- N: I learn from the teachings that dosa cannot be caused by someone else, that the real cause is within, not outside. This helps us to face dosa with understanding, to know its nature. Not the situations or others are the real cause. What also helps me is that praise and blame are caused by kamma, not by others. In one lot of posts I am blamed and I am praised. What does it matter? I am glad you brought up the vancaka dhammas. I quote from a message that is also on Rob K's study forum:http:// groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/3543 1. apatikkulasagnamukhena kamacchando vangcethi One develops the apatikkula sanna - looking at every living or non- living object in the same perspective. Whether the dhathu in his body, in an alien body, rocks, trees, young body, decayed body,... start to look the same. He has no disgust in the things that are disgusting to others.( phlegm,urine etc...) They look just like collections of dhathus to him. He will attend to the ones in need of help, without [being] disgusted [with] the filth. But Kamacchanda will disguise itself as apatikkulasanna. One has liking to the praise, profits etc .. gained by helping people. (But he knows this kamacchada is a bad quality in him.) When there's a person in need, and others do not reach him because of the patikula things associated with helping, there's a chance that in the former's mind the kamacchanda will arise, and he helps the person without feeling any disgust. But he thinks that apatikkula sanna has arose. It is indeed real hard to distinguish the kusala from the akusala. The only catch is to see whether this 'apatikkula sanna' is still there when the praises and profits are not associated with the helping. --------- N: It is hard to distinguish the kusala from the akusala. We can only know when they arise at the present moment, in the situation. Nina. #78471 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] to Han.Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (7) nilovg Dear Han, I think a debate like that is difficult. There are so many texts on feelings and many aspects are shown in different texts. Such as understanding dukkha by means of three feelings. We cannot apply one text for all situations. An argument between you and the rest? I would not take this so seriously, but I think you do not take this seriously. 'Just telling stories'? I would take this as a reminder that indeed we are mostly thinking of the others, the situation, instead of knowing ourselves, the cittas that arise. Nina. Op 11-nov-2007, om 0:17 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > “If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure, one does > not relish it, welcome it, or remain fastened to it, > then one's passion-obsession doesn't get obsessed. If, > when touched by a feeling of pain, one does not > sorrow, grieve, or lament, beat one's breast or become > distraught, then one's resistance obsession doesn't > get obsessed. #78472 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:31 am Subject: Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, no 11. nilovg Dear friends, When we are reading we are immediately absorbed in the story we read and we have different feelings about it, we feel happy or sad. At such moments we live in the world of concepts and ideas that are real merely in conventional sense. When we are reading, different cittas experience different objects. The citta that sees experiences only colour or visible object which impinges on the eyesense. Other types of cittas think of the meaning of the letters and of the whole story. Acharn Sujin reminded us that in real life we are also as it were “reading”. We are looking at lines and shapes and we define these as this or that person. We should not try to avoid thinking of concepts of people and things, but we can learn the difference between paramattha dhammas and concepts. When the object citta experiences is not a paramattha dhamma it is a concept. The Buddha spoke time and again of all the objets appearing one at a time through the six doors so that people would understand what paramattha dhammas are. Through mindfulness of paramattha dhammas as they appear one at a time, understanding of their nature of anattå can be developed. Acharn Sujin often reminded us that everything is dhamma. It is true that dhammas appear all the time: seeing, visible object, hearing, sound, thinking. Usually we are absorbed in our thoughts about the conventional world, we do not realize that there is dhamma. Acharn Sujin said that when we learn that everything is dhamma, we should not leave it at that, but that we should develop understanding until we know through our own experience that everything is dhamma. If there never is awareness of what appears through the eyes at this moment, realities cannot appear as just dhammas. Our life can change: first we were clinging to a self who sees or hears, but now we can learn that there are only different dhammas each with their own characteristic. ****** Nina. #78473 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Realities and Concepts (1) ... Citta and We... nilovg Hi Tep, Op 9-nov-2007, om 23:58 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > it experiences only that one object, say, sound. It does not > > experience any other object, nor does it think of any idea of a > > person. This is only for a moment. The next moment citta may think > > of a person. > > This is about the same as what Han says: sometimes Han, > sometimes no- Han. No problem. It depends on conditions. > > T: For clarification purpose : is 'citta' same as a single citta -- > not a > stream of consciousnes or 'mind'? What Han said, I think, is a thought > not a single citta. ------- N: The cittas that experience objects through the different doorways arise in processes. Hearing hears sound, and the receiving- consciousness that follows also experiences sound, but it does not hear. When cittas think, these are cittas raising in a mind-door process. They experience the same objects, such as the idea of Han. The word thought I would rather use for the concept that is the object of thinking; and the word thinking for the action. I do not know whether this answers your question. Nina. #78474 From: han tun Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 2:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] to Han.Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (7) hantun1 Dear Nina, I do not wish to continue this particular point. Please just remember that I respect you. Respectfully, Han #78475 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "The Teachings are Dying" christine_fo... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Christine, > > On 06/11/2007, Christine Forsyth wrote: > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > During Dhamma talks in India, I recall that a statement was made by K. > > Sujin to the effect that "The Teachings are dying". My remembrance is > > that she seemed of the view that they were dying rather quickly. Do > > any others who were present recall something similar? > > > > I've got good or bad news for you, depending on how you would like > things to be. But, in a nutshell, the teachings are not dying. In > fact, you would be hard pushed to find a non-theistic university > graduate today that believes in a soul / agency . People from all > walks of life acknowledge the reality of anatta. And most of them > understand that there is no such thing as copyright on ideas. In other > words, noone owns this realisation of the voidness of experience, so > no-one needs to go on pilgrimages, worship relics, pay special > attention to folks in particular garb, blah di blah di blah. What is > dying is belief in the efficacy of rites and rituals, you know, the > silabat.. para..... thing. And let's all praise the Lord for that :-) > > > Herman > Hello Herman, I don't agree. Whatever people may discuss intellectually, everybody I know believes in 'me'. They would say if pressed that they believe there will be death 'one day' - this 'one day' is always in the future,not in the seemingly eternal 'now'. Whether they use the term 'soul' or not, or 'self' or not, is beside the point. 'Self' reigns supreme irrespective of intellectual games 'well' people play ~ come and work in the hospital for a while to really see what people believe when the diagnosis comes in and the prognosis is against them living much longer. metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- #78476 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:32 am Subject: Re: How to track down Pali (for Scott or Connie) scottduncan2 Dear Phil, How are you man? P: "You guys seem to be really good at tracking down the Pali of suttas. Could I ask you to give me a little workshop on how to do it so I don't have to keep asking?" Scott: I'll give it a go although I am definitely second fiddle. P: "For example, I'm really interested these days in AN IX,5, ("Fivefold Freedom from Fear") from BB's anthology..." Scott: Okay. First I go to a source for the Pali, either: http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/index.html Or: http://www.tipitaka.org/ (Click on 'Roman' in the list). P: "...and I'd like to know the difference in the Pali used for these parts..." "...the things which are wholesome/unwholesome are held to be wholesome/unwholesome, the things which are blameworthy/blameless are held to be blameworthy/blameless, the things which are dark/bright are held to be dark/bright..." Scott: I then search for the portion in the Pali. Look for the title of the sutta, and just mainly word recognition to find the right section. The different numbering systems sometimes lead to difficulty but just keep looking - you'll find it eventually. This just comes with practise. The 'key words' are always the ones that jump out. In the above there will likely be kusala and akusala, right? So: "...ye dhammaa akusalaa akusalasa"nkhaataa, ye dhammaa kusalaa kusalasa"nkhaataa, ye dhammaa saavajjaa sà vajjasa"nkhaataa, ye dhammaa anavajjaa anavajjasa"nkhaataa, ye dhammaa ka.nhaa ka.nhasa"nkhaataa, ye dhammaa sukkaa sukkasa"nkhaataa..." Scott: This seems to be it. I went to the Anguttara Nikaya from the Index (mettanet). I went to the Book of Nines (Navakanipaata) and its the fifth sutta, numbered '001.05'. P: "I'd like to know more about the difference in meanings in those three pairs. Could you guide me through the process of looking it up. I've been shown a website that gives Pali for suttas, but I couldn't figure out how to match its classification/numbering to the books I have." Scott: As I said, the finding of the sutta takes a bit of time, as you are noticing. Keep playing with it. I then take the key words and then list them: akusalaa kusalaa saavajjaa anavajjaa ka.nhaa sukkaa P: "Once we find the Pali, is there an online dictionary we can use to find out more about each word?" Scott: I use the Pali Text Society PTS. I look up each word but I also then go studying the words from other sources. http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/ Hope that helps. Have fun, Phil. Sincerely, Scott. #78477 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:34 am Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) buddhistmedi... Hi Ken H and Dieter, - Your dialogues in the message #78465 are fun to read because your opinions/beliefs are nearly opposite in almost anything ! ........... KH: > > But that is not so! There seems to be a large proportion of Buddhists who believe in an eternal soul. (Although they prefer not to call it by that name.) D: I don't think so.. certainly a large proportion of Buddhists accept the samsaric reality but hope and believe they may be able to be free of it by the guidance of the Dhamma and realize nibbana ..somewhere in future... ---------------------- KH: Before my Abhidhamma-studies began I would have shared those sentiments, but now I shy away from that kind of language. It gives the impression of a lasting soul, or self, that is now unfree and will later be free. ------------------------------------ T: The Abhidhamma and Suttanta pitakas are not dichotic - they are interconnected. Having studied both, you should have been in the best position to (wisely) gain a balanced view of the two. .............. KH: > > > <. . .> #34543 <. . .> As for interpretations of Thanissaro's writings, please look at another old post of mine - 34782 - and tell me what you think. D: I will do ..but perhaps we have a start for exchange already.. ;-) -------------------------------- KH: I'd be grateful if you and Tep would have a quick look at them (and at the other posts Sarah mentioned). I won't have much computer time over the next couple of days, so there's no hurry. :-) .............. T: I would be happy to tag along. Tep === #78478 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:37 am Subject: Some well deserved question's reverendagga... Hi everybody! i need some question's answered,and if somebody could help me i would appreciate that very mutch! in the D.N.sutta#11 (the Kevatta Sutta)Ven.gotama discusses what one can do with certain psychic abilities. The "mind made body" and the "one who become's many". What pray tell is he actually talking about?The "mind made body" is discussed in terms that would describe what we call "ASTRAL PROJECTION" or "OUT OF BODY EXPIERIENCE"(O.O.B.E.). When i'm sitting in a temple and should i theoreticly go for a walk with my astral(oops!)mind made body that has "all of the same faculties" which self is my real "not self"?one the other or both? If i should theoreticly decide to become "the many" is my "not self" now the many "not selves?" Just what is the nature of this phenomena? If it can go for a walk through walls etc.why can't it be able to take a walk with the "relinking of consciousness"?previously discussed? Why does the fact that others call this a "soul" make some so very uncomfortable? If Ven. Gotama taught neither a "self" nor a "no self" was he not then in essence teaching both a "self and a "no self"as well?,as a process of phenomena constantly arising,existing,and ceasing to exist? If i could check my e mail someday and some really good and kind hearted members of the d.s.g.could educate me by providing me with some answers to these questions ,oh!what a happy and glad day it would be for me! Thank you all so very mutch! May the Buddha's, Deva and Angel's deeply bless and spiritually enrich ALL of your lives! Yours in dhamma, bhikkhu aggacitto/aka reverend aggacitto #78479 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:41 am Subject: Re: How to track down Pali (for Scott or Connie) scottduncan2 Dear Phil, P.S. Re: "I went to the Anguttara Nikaya from the Index (mettanet). I went to the Book of Nines (Navakanipaata) and its the fifth sutta, numbered '001.05'." Scott: That's for the English translation. The Pali is numbered: '9. 1. 1. 5', and entitled, 'Balasa"ngahavatthu sutta.m'. Sincerely, Scott. #78480 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:40 am Subject: Perfections Corner (35) nichiconn Dear All, This is the continuation of Chapter 7: The Perfection of Truthfulness, taken from the book "The Perfections Leading to Enlightenment" by Sujin Boriharnwanaket and translated by Nina van Gorkom. Questions, comments, or different opinions are welcome. ------------------------------ We should consider what was said about applying energy for the welfare of beings. We should not have selfish motives, not act for our own sake when we are giving support to others. We need energy, otherwise we could not help others in an unselfish way. We should support others as far as we are able to, such as sharing in the performance of their tasks, alleviating their burden. At such moments we can realize immediately that we need energy when we want to help others. We can understand that, in order to eradicate defilements, we should follow the example of the Bodhisatta's practice. We should apply energy for the welfare of beings in whatever way we can, depending on the situation of our daily life, even by way of speech, by giving guidance to others. It may be somewhat troublesome for us to help others, but our support can be a condition for others also to develop a great deal of kusala in their lives. We can give support to others if we apply energy for their benefit. As we read in the Commentary: "He should be capable of enduring everything whether desirable or undesirable." When we are infatuated with something, we may realize that this is not ordinary attachment, but a stronger degree of lobha. We may be absorbed in the object of attachment, but when sati-sampaja~n~na arises we can realize that we should endure everything, whether desirable or undesirable. If we very gradually learn to be patient, we shall know what the characteristic of true patience is. We can accumulate patience in all situations, no matter whether we experience objects through the bodysense or hear someone else's speech. We can learn to be patient and not complain about cold, heat or difficult situations in life. Then we shall understand what patience is. As we read in the Commentary, "he should speak without deception." A righteous person speaks in accordance with the truth, whereas an evil person utters deceptive speech. When we do not speak according to the truth, we should scrutinize ourselves in order to find out whether we are righteous or evil. As we read in the Commentary, "He should suffuse all beings with universal loving-kindness and compassion." One's loving-kindness should be universal, without partiality. Generally, people have loving-kindness for someone who is righteous, not for an evil person. This shows that loving-kindness and compassion are not extended to all beings, that they are not yet universal. If someone has developed loving-kindness, he can extend it to all beings, be they righteous or evil. Then sati-sampaja~n~na is aware and understands what is proper and what is improper. === to be continued, connie #78481 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:41 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (70) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 12 13. Viisatinipaato 5. Subhaakammaaradhiitutheriigaathaava.n.nanaa verse: 351. "Utti.t.thapi.n.do u~ncho ca, pa.msukuula~nca ciivara.m; eta.m kho mama saaruppa.m, anagaaruupanissayo. 349. Leftover scraps and gleanings [as food], and a rag from a dustheap as a robe - this is indeed proper for me, the basic essentials for a homeless one. txt: Utti.t.thapi.n.doti viva.tadvaare ghare ghare pati.t.thitvaa labhanakapi.n.do. U~nchoti tadattha.m u~nchaacariyaa. Anagaaruupanissayoti anagaaraana.m pabbajitaana.m upagantvaa nissitabbato upanissayabhuuto jiivitaparikkhaaro. Ta~nhi nissaaya pabbajitaa jiivanti. 349. Leftover scraps (utti.t.thia-pi.n.do) means: scraps received (labhanaka-pi.n.do) when standing outside (pati.t.thitvaa) each house with an open door. Gleanings (u~ncho) means: the practice of gleaning (u~nchaa-cariyaa) for that purpose. The basic essentials for a homeless one (anagaaruupanissayo) means: the requisites for living that are the basis because they are to be relied on (upagantvaa) by those who are homeless ones (anagaaraana.m), those who have gone forth. Those who have gone forth live by depending on that. verse: 352. "Vantaa mahesiihi kaamaa, ye dibbaa ye ca maanusaa; khema.t.thaane vimuttaa te, pattaa te acala.m sukha.m. 350. The great seers have rejected sensual pleasures, those that are divine and those that are human. They [those seers] are completely released in the place of security. They have arrived at unshakable happiness. txt: Vantaati cha.d.ditaa. Mahesiihiiti buddhaadiihi mahesiihi. Khema.t.thaaneti kaamayogaadiihi anupaddava.t.thaanabhuute nibbaane. Teti mahesayo. Acala.m sukhanti nibbaanasukha.m pattaa. Tasmaa ta.m patthentena kaamaa pariccajitabbaati adhippaayo. 350. Rejected means: thrown away. Great seers means: great seers such as the Buddhas. In the place of security (khema-.t.thaane) means: in quenching, the place that is unoppressed (anupaddava-.t.taana-bhuute) by the fetters of sensual pleasures, etc. They means: great sages (mahesayo). Unshakable happiness means: they have arrived at the happiness of quenching (nibbaana-sukha.m). Since the great sages such as Buddhas have rejected sensual pleasures, they have arrived at the happiness of quenching. Therefore, when desiring it [quenching], sensual pleasures are to be abandoned. verse: 353. "Maaha.m kaamehi sa.mgacchi.m, yesu taa.na.m na vijjati; amittaa vadhakaa kaamaa, aggikkhandhuupamaa dukhaa. 351. May I not meet [again] with sensual pleasures in which no refuge is found. Sensual pleasures are enemies, murderers, like a mass of fire, pain[ful]. txt: Maaha.m kaamehi sa.mgacchinti aha.m kadaacipi kaamehi na samaagaccheyya.m. Kasmaati ce aaha "yesu taa.na.m na vijjatii"ti-aadi, yesu kaamesu upaparikkhiyamaanesu ekasmimpi anatthaparittaa.na.m naama natthi. Aggikkhandhuupamaa mahaabhitaapa.t.thena. Dukhaa dukkhama.t.thena. 351. May I not meet (sa.mgacchi.m) [again] with sensual pleasures means: may I never meet (samaagaccheyya.m) with sensual pleasures. If anyone asks why she says in which no refuge is found, etc, [it means:] in which there is no protection from misfortune, not even in one of the sensual pleasures if one investigates them. They are like a mass of fire through being based on being extremely hot. They are pain[ful] (dukhaa) in the sense of pain (dukkha-m-a.t.thena). === to be continued, connie #78482 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) jonoabb Hi Robert Thanks for coming back with some sutta passages. I think it helps to consider these closely. I will keep my comments short, so as not to stray too far from the question I raised of whether the passage supports the idea that "in order to develop awareness or insight it is necessary (or advisable) to undertake a 'practice' consisting of particular mental activities, that is to say, something done for the express purpose of arousing awareness or insight". Robert wrote: > Hello Jon, > > ... > >From MN 118 > > "Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of > great fruit, of great benefit. Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when > developed & pursued, brings the four frames of reference to their > culmination. The four frames of reference, when developed & pursued, > bring the seven factors for awakening to their culmination. The seven > factors for awakening, when developed & pursued, bring clear knowing > & release to their culmination." > > "Now how is mindfulness of in-&-out breathing developed & pursued so > as to be of great fruit, of great benefit? > > "There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the > shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs > crosswise, holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the fore.1 > Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out." > > That sounds fairly intentional to me - this is something you do because > when this practice is developed and pursued it brings clear knowing & > release. The statement, "Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit" in MN 118 needs to be understood in the context of the sutta as a whole. As I read the sutta, it means in effect that a follower of the teachings who: (a) is already adept at both mindfulness of in-&-out breathing (anapanasati, a form of samatha) and insight (vipassana), and (b) has attained, or has the potential to attain, jhana with in-&-out breathing as object, and (c) has the potential to attain enlightenment, may attain enlightenment with jhana as basis, i.e., jhana and enlightenment in tandem instead of separately, the former being the higher and more difficult way of attaining enlightenment. The passage you have quoted sets out the 'case where' scenario in point (a) above, that is to say, it indicates the kind of person that is being referred to in the discourse that follows. So on my reading it does not suggest that the activities there described are a prerequisite for the development of insight. > >From MN 107 > > "As soon, brahman, as he is possessed of mindfulness and clear > consciousness, the Tathagata disciplines him further, saying: 'Come > you, monk, choose a remote lodging in a forest, at the root of a tree, on > a mountain slope, in a glen, a hill cave, a cemetery, a woodland grove, > in the open, or on a heap of straw.' On returning from alms-gathering > after the meal, the monk sits down crosslegged, holding the back erect, > having made mindfulness rise up in front of him. He, getting rid of > covetousness for the world, dwells with a mind devoid of covetousness, > he cleanses the mind of covetousness. Getting rid of the taint of ill-will, > he dwells benevolent in mind; compassionate and merciful towards all > creatures and beings, he cleanses the mind of ill-will. Getting rid of sloth > and torpor, he dwells without sloth or torpor; perceiving the light, > mindful and clearly conscious he cleanses the mind of sloth and torpor. > Getting rid of restlessness and worry, he dwells calmly; the mind inward > tranquil, he cleanses the mind of restlessness and worry. Getting rid of > doubt, he dwells doubt-crossed; unperplexed as to the states that are > skilled, he cleanses his mind of doubt." In MN 107, the Buddha describes, to a lay questioner, the instruction given to monks who are personally instructed by him. The instruction includes aspects of both samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana. The particular passage you have quoted indicates the suppression of the 5 hindrances, as occurs when jhana is attained. > Why would the Buddha have gone to such detail as to the procedure to > follow if he did not think it was of benefit toward the only thing he > thought worth pursuing, which is awakening? > I do not see the passage as describing a procedure to be followed. To my understanding, the matters described in the passage (i.e., making mindfulness arise up in front, getting rid of covetousness, etc, dwelling with a mind free from covetousness, etc) are attainments rather than mental activities to be undertaken. The suppression of the hindrances is the result of having developed samatha to the level of access concentration. > There are also many texts about following precepts and being > generous, such as the one I quoted previously from the Mangala sutta: > > "To be generous in giving, to be righteous in conduct,11 to help one's > relatives, and to be blameless in action — this is the greatest blessing." > Yes, but again, these are actual occurrences of kusala rather than some form of 'training exercise', wouldn't you say? > Nobody questions the value of hearing the Dhamma and considering > what you hear - the activity that is the focus of DSG. I just think your > practice would benefit from considering other aspects of the Buddhist > path as well. > I think everyone here is serious about all aspects of the path. Our differences lie in what constitutes those aspects, most particularly vipassana bhavana (the development of insight). That is the main topic of discussion here. But serious we are!! Jon #78483 From: "mudita98" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:51 am Subject: Re: India 1. mudita98 Dear Sarah , Actually, The book "Abhidhamma in Daily life "was given to one of my friend from a young man from your group . I myself have that book last year , I got it from a buddhist group which give free buddhist printing. And about 2 years ago , when I insearch of some infromation about Abhidhamma, I came across the Vipassana web-site, from there I got all the articles and books of Nina and some of Sujin. I really benefit a lot from the readings I print out ,even it took me quite a lot of time, especially about Rupa and Paccaya. A sincere thanks and greatful to Nina's Dhamma sharing! "All dhamma are anattaa" , that's what the most important teaching of the Buddha , and the different between Buddha teaching and the other religon , they must have a "attaa", if not they cannot understand a single thing! But the anattaa right view must built up by understanding the Paticcasamuppada and pacaya . That's the little I understand . Please correct me if I am not right. Thanks a lot . I collected a lot of kusala citta when I visted the holy places which doing chanting , meditation, pay respect and dhamma discussion and so on. With Metta , Shiau Min #78484 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How to track down Pali (for Scott or Connie) upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and Phil) - In a message dated 11/11/2007 8:32:34 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Phil, How are you man? P: "You guys seem to be really good at tracking down the Pali of suttas. Could I ask you to give me a little workshop on how to do it so I don't have to keep asking?" Scott: I'll give it a go although I am definitely second fiddle. =============================== Very helpful, Scott! :-) With metta, Howard #78485 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:13 am Subject: Re: How to track down Pali (for Scott or Connie) philofillet Hi Scot Merci bouquet! Metta, Phil > Scott: I'll give it a go although I am definitely second fiddle. > #78486 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:15 am Subject: [dsg] Re: How to track down Pali (for Scott or Connie) scottduncan2 Dear Howard, H: "Very helpful, Scott! :-)" Scott: Thanks Howard. It finally pays off to be a nerd! Sincerely, Scott. #78487 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:17 am Subject: Re: How to track down Pali (for Scott or Connie) scottduncan2 Dear Phil, P: "Merci bouquet!" Scott: Il n'y a pas de quoi. Sincerely, Scott. #78488 From: han tun Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Corner (35) hantun1 Dear Connie, I find the following passage in the text you have just presented. [As we read in the Commentary, "he should speak without deception." A righteous person speaks in accordance with the truth, whereas an evil person utters deceptive speech.] According to U Shwe Aung, a Burmese scholar, a bodhisatta, when his paramis are not yet fully developed, may do some unwholesome activities, but he never speaks with deception or never tells lies. This is just to share with you what I have read. With metta and respect, Han #78490 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "The Teachings are Dying" philofillet Hi Christine > Whether they use the term 'soul' or not, or 'self' or not, is beside > the point. 'Self' reigns supreme irrespective of intellectual > games 'well' people play ~ come and work in the hospital for a while > to really see what people believe when the diagnosis comes in and > the prognosis is against them living much longer. I think this is true, though I have no first hand experience. My concern with the idea of developing a deep intellectual understanding of the anattaness of it all is that in the face of deathbed issues that understanding would crumble, or lead one into clinging in a desparate way to that intellectual understanding of paramattha dhammas, trying to force that understanding to provide a shelter of some kind. (I know that's not your point, but what I've been thinking about.) I think the Buddha, in the suttas I am moved by in AN these days, provides a more realistic shelter for busy worldlings - hope for a "favourable destination" in rebirth. It's there again and again and again. I don't know how this can *not* be eternalism, and therfore wrong view, but perhaps the Buddha in his great wisdom knew that people of limited understanding will eventually cling to a need for that kind of comfort, so it is best that it comes withing the context of the Dhamma, where a deeper and rarer liberation also lies for the Ariyans....? Just thinking out loud. I want to post more about this to Sarah later in the post I owe her and keep thinking about it a lot more. Those suttas cannot be denied - they are there and whether commentaries point at a deeper meaning or not, the literal, surface (conventional?) meaning was also offered by the Buddha, I have no doubt about that. And unless the translations really suck - which I doubt - they say what they say. Metta, Phil #78491 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some well deserved question's upasaka_howard Hi, Bhante - In a message dated 11/11/2007 8:37:20 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, reverendaggacitto@... writes: Hi everybody! i need some question's answered,and if somebody could help me i would appreciate that very mutch! in the D.N.sutta#11 (the Kevatta Sutta)Ven.gotama discusses what one can do with certain psychic abilities. The "mind made body" and the "one who become's many". What pray tell is he actually talking about?The "mind made body" is discussed in terms that would describe what we call "ASTRAL PROJECTION" or "OUT OF BODY EXPIERIENCE"(O.O.B.E.). ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I do think that the mind-made body mentioned by the Buddha corresponds roughly to the astral body of the occultists. The main difference, as I see it, is that what the Buddha refers to is a mental creation, and not something that permanently resides as a kind of template for the physical form. ---------------------------------------------------------- When i'm sitting in a temple and should i theoreticly go for a walk with my astral(oops!)mind made body that has "all of the same faculties" which self is my real "not self"?one the other or both? --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Why look for where a non-existent self would be? When content of consciousness is associated with the mind-made body, one might informally say that "one is travelling in the astral," but the facts are merely that certain mind states are arising rather than others. -------------------------------------------------------- If i should theoreticly decide to become "the many" is my "not self" now the many "not selves?" -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: If it is error to speak of "selves", how much more of an error to speak of "not-selves"! Bad enough to reify a positive term, I'd say! There is no such thing as a "not-self". The point is "merely" that nothing anywhere is or has self. Nothing has essence or self-existence, and nothing is "me or mine". -------------------------------------------------- Just what is the nature of this phenomena? If it can go for a walk through walls etc.why can't it be able to take a walk with the "relinking of consciousness"?previously discussed? --------------------------------------------------- Howard: There literally is no "we" to walk through walls or not through walls nor to re-link. Speaking of an "I" who does things is figurative speech for Buddhists, not literal speech. ------------------------------------------------------ Why does the fact that others call this a "soul" make some so very uncomfortable? ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Call *what* a soul? A mind-made body? An alleged soul in anything is defined as its claimed unchanging, self-existent, independent essence, the notion of which is quite contrary to the Dhamma. A mind-made body is no soul, it clearly not satisfying the definition of 'soul'. -------------------------------------------------------- If Ven. Gotama taught neither a "self" nor a "no self" was he not then in essence teaching both a "self and a "no self"as well?,as a process of phenomena constantly arising,existing,and ceasing to exist? -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: The Buddha never taught the existence of anything called "a no self". He merely stated that nowhere is there to be found anything that is or has self. His no-self/not-self teaching was a denial of a mode of existence, not an assertion of the existence of something. ------------------------------------------------------ If i could check my e mail someday and some really good and kind hearted members of the d.s.g.could educate me by providing me with some answers to these questions ,oh!what a happy and glad day it would be for me! ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: What would please you more, Bhante, coming to understand the meaning of the "no self" teaching or persuading others of a claimed falsity for it? Have you considered this question, Bhante? ---------------------------------------------------- Thank you all so very mutch! May the Buddha's, Deva and Angel's deeply bless and spiritually enrich ALL of your lives! --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Bhante, do you use 'Angels' as translation for 'Brahmas'? If yes, I agree that it is a better choice than 'gods', but 'Angels' isn't really good either, for in Christianity and Judaism (and Islam too, I imagine), a so-called angel is a "messenger of God", which isn't appropriate in a Buddhist context. -------------------------------------------------- Yours in dhamma, bhikkhu aggacitto/aka reverend aggacitto =========================== With metta, Howard #78492 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How to track down Pali (for Scott or Connie) upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 11/11/2007 9:15:54 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, H: "Very helpful, Scott! :-)" Scott: Thanks Howard. It finally pays off to be a nerd! ----------------------------------------------- Howard: ;-)) ----------------------------------------------- Sincerely, Scott. ======================== With metta, Howard #78493 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:00 am Subject: Re: Realities and Concepts (1) ... Citta and We... buddhistmedi... Hi Nina, - At the end of the message you wrote, "I do not know whether this answers your question". I can tell that the first part of your reply is clear, but the second part about thinking versus thought & concept versus reality confuses me a lot. Below I'll show this confusion in terms of questions that I can't answer. > >T: For clarification purpose : is 'citta' same as a single citta -- not a stream of consciousnes or 'mind'? What Han said, I think, is a thought not a single citta. ------- >N: The cittas that experience objects through the different doorways arise in processes. Hearing hears sound, and the receiving- consciousness that follows also experiences sound, but it does not hear. When cittas think, these are cittas arising in a mind-door process. They experience the same objects, such as the idea of Han. T: Since I also study the Visuddhimagga, I know that you are talking about the various cittas that arise between the five doors and the mind door to perform their functions. I also understand that "When cittas think, these are cittas arising in a mind-door process". ........... >N: The word thought I would rather use for the concept that is the object of thinking; and the word thinking for the action. T: Yes, thinking is an action, and what we think is a thought. But a past thought, ours or other person's, may become an object of our thinking too. When the Buddha talked about 'mano' and 'dhamma' (ideas) in AN 10.60 ['the intellect is not-self, ideas are not- self.'] I understand the 'dhamma' can be anything that the mind thinks of, or takes as a 'mind object'. Why do you limit the 'object of thinking' to be a concept that does not have the ti-lakkhana? Isn't a mind object a sankhara, and isn't sankhara any dhamma that is formed by the coming together of other dhammas? I do appreciate your admirable dedication to teach and explain the dhammas (from the abhidhamma) at this discussion group for several years. Some people (like me) always come back with more questions. No doubt, you may feel like watering a dead tree -- it does not grow anymore, why waste your time? So it must be tiring and disappointing to you, I guess. Tep === #78494 From: mlnease Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) m_nease Hi Matt, Nothing to add, just wanted to say thanks for a /wonderfully/ well-written post. Really looking forward to more. mike #78495 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:51 am Subject: Re: Q. re Conditions, Ch 17, 3. the Khandhas. buddhistmedi... Hi Nina, - Now I am ready to give a serious reply to the serious mesage(#78101) you posted six days ago. [Tep: Point 1. Past and future khandhas do not arise here and now; they are recalled or mentally reconstructed. Hence they are concepts (citta sankhara or mental constructs as Howard wisely put it).] >N: Citta arises and falls away, and then it is past. I do not see how it would change into a concept when it is past. T: The past cittas are not at the present moment(khana), therfore only a memory of them and their concomitants (hence, concept) can be object of the present citta. ........... >N: What I want to demonstrate is: that the subject of present, past, future is complex. There is much more to it than one my think. I want to be careful with the word concept. Tep: I am thankful for your effort to treat the term 'concept' with care. It has been loosely defined for too long. You summarized the "four aspects according to which ruupa can be seen as past, future and present", according to extent, continuity, period and moment. But you have not yet related these four aspects of ruupa back to 'concept', and so I feel I am left hanging in the air right now. Help! I want to get back to the ground. >N: N: the first three are sapariyaaya (figurative) and the last one is nippariyaaya (literal). The last one is in the ultimate sense only. T: Okay. Do you imply that anything that is not "literal", it is a concept? BTW what does literal mean here? ........... [Tep: Point 2. Past and future khandhas have the three characteristics as the present ones, and as such they can be used as the objects of 'satipatthana bhavana' as seen in DN 22 (for example, a corpse)] >N: The fact that they have the three general characterisics shows that they are dhammas, not concepts. Concepts do not have these characteristics. T: Do you mean I should define concepts as 'things that do not have the characteristics'? Or, should concepts be defined as things that are non-literal? [In a dictionary, literal means 'exact, not figurative, not metaphorical'.] ........ >N: >Under Mindfulness of Body we read about many concepts, but we have to remember: in the Suttas we find the Suttanta method. The Buddha pointed to the truth of this moment in a very compassionate, gentle way, in language that could be understood by the audience. A corpse becomes like seashells, like a very fine dust and then there is nothing left of it. Our body now is like a corpse. All the ruupas fall away from head to toe, each moment, there is nothing left of it. They are replaced, produced by kamma, citta, nutrition and temperature, and thus it seems that the ruupas of the body last. T: Do you think a corpse is an ultimate reality? I cited a 'corpse' as an example of external objects (like a table, mountain, car, etc.) that are not ultimate realities, yet the Buddha recommended using a corpse for contemplation purposes. Why? To me the corpse is clearly a concept, not a paramattha dhamma that rises and falls quickly. It deforms slowly and will finally degenerate and be gone. The various states of a corpse, from the beginning when it is still fresh, to rottening states, to a skeleton, and finally to pieces of disconnected bones, vividly demonstrate the three characteristics (ti- lakkhana). The meditator benefits by comparing his/her body to the corpse and comes to the realization of aniccam, dukkham, anatta in his/her beloved body. ......... > >T: In the above quote the Buddha taught that a body/khandha in the past and in the future should not be grasped with clinging. It is an example of how concepts are used for satipatthana development. >N: Yes, when the suttanta method us used, concepts are mentioned, but they point to the anattaness of nama and rupa. T: Do they just "point to" anata-ness but they should never be used as objects for contemplation of anatta (anattanupassana)? ......... >N: In another sutta (an Auspicious Night, M.) the Buddha taught us not to hanker after what is past or long for what has not come yet. Just be aware of the present moment. This is how I take what is said of not clinging to past and future khandhas. Seeing is khandha, vi~n`naa.nakhandha. It is very real, I cannot think of it as a concept. T: With all due respect, Nina, but I think concept is not the issue here. We are aware of the present moment as the ONLY moment we have now to develop sila, samadhi, panna (the eightfold path, or the four foundations of mindfulness). When one is heedful (atapi, sampajanno, satima) in the present moment that is wholesome, soon when it turns into past that moment will also be wholesome. One does not have to worry about the future, since soon it will automatically become present. Therefore, focusing on the present moment is very wise practice. Thanks. Tep === #78496 From: "Robert" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:59 am Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) avalo1968 Hello Jon, Thanks for your reply. Best Regards, Robert A. #78497 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 9:20 am Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) truth_aerator Dear Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Thanks for the reply: > > Me: "But what is 'sense' in your view? You say 'senses' are > 'perceptions (concept) based on consciousness'. You seem to be > describing exactly nothing." > > A: "For example a physical eye organ. It is a) visual & tactile > perception." > > Scott: The 'eye' you describe is not the 'eye' of 'eye consciousness'. > Check out pasaada ruupa. You are referring to a piece of meat too > large and unwieldy to be 'eye consciousness'. --------- I was talking about a perception of meat that we call an "eye". To see you need optic nerve, and other things (including mind- consiousness). > > A: "If there were no consiousness, there would be no perception (ie > recognition, label) 'this or that organ.'." > > Scott: If visible object, pasaada ruupa, and eye-consciousness did not coincide, there would be no seeing. >>>>>>>> Visible object can't be outside of visual consciosness. Same with rupa. That does NOT mean that outside of consciousness there is nothing. It means that consiousness must be present to define anything. > A: "It depends on what you mean by word "real". Consiousness > FUNCTIONS. So does perception, etc. However what lies behind them, we > do not and cannot know." > > Scott: This is mysticism, this 'what lies behind them'. I'm afraid I > don't follow you. There is nothing behind them. >>>>> What I've said, or tried to say was: When we talk about something we talk about a fact of experience. What lies beyond experience is a) unprovable. b) undefinable. c) ultimately irrelevant. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > A: "Precisely because they do not have 'existence from their own side' > they are said to be Dependently Originated." > > Scott: If they 'do not have existence from their own side', what are they? >>>>>>>> Dependently arisen events. Not static entities. >>>>>>> > Scott: Are you saying naama and ruupa are identical? Are they not two > separate realities? >>>>>>>>>>> eye consciousness is different from lets say ear consciousness. Body feelings are different from mind feelings. But what is the difference between eye consciousness and its content? You can't separate qualities and so called "object". Visual perception has to come WITH visual form. >>>>> > A: "If it is separate from consiousness then how can we talk about it? If it is NOT separate than what the point of artificially making it something other than percieving consiousness?" > > Scott: I'm sorry but I'm not following you here. Aren't we discussing ruupa and naama? All perception is naama. >>>>>>>>> check above. >>>>>> Are you saying that ruupa is artificially created by mind? >>>>>>>>>>>> In a certain way YES. Through volition (kamma) future ruupa will appear. This is strait from the Buddha's lips. ------- Now what, monks, is old karma? The eye is to be seen as old karma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear ... The nose ... The tongue ... The body ... The intellect is to be seen as old karma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old karma. SN35.145 -------- > A: "In Buddha's teaching, strictly speaking it is incorrect to > say "identity and difference". Every split second everything changes (perhaps billions of times) thus there is no absolute identity even of one thing (unless you artificially freeze it in artificial> 'present'). If there is no absolute identity, then there > is no absolute difference either since it requires 2 absolute > identities to compare which ultimately do not exist outside of > artifical 'present' moment of time." > > Scott: I'm sorry but this is incomprehensible. Are you saying that > two wrongs don't make a right? Or are you now suggesting that there > are paramattha dhammas? When you say 'everything changes' to what are you referring? >>>>>>> I am saying that it is incorrect to regard anything as atta or as having self characteristics. Everything is INTERDEPENDENT rather than a static entity or non-entity. When there is no self, there is no other... Thus ultimately any sorts of measuring, conceits, etc are not ultimate, final or eternal. >>>>>> > Scott: Again I really have no clue what you are referring to with the 'what lies behind them'. Any chance of a clarification? >>>>>>> Our intellect goes as far as the 6 senses go and not further. We cannot perceive unperceivable. Consciousness MUST be present to define anything even as (existence, non-existence, both, neither). >>>>>>> > A: "If they don't act, then how do they arise? Fall? etc. That would > be impossible since as you've said - "they don't act". Since they > don't act, they are static... And you know where this leads..." > > Scott: Alex, you are all over the map. To assert now that dhammas act > is to fly in the face of all you've been saying about 'sabhava > particles' (and I don't even know what you are saying about 'sabhava > particles' but I think it would have to do with how they cannot be > little actors wouldn't it - I hate to carry both sides of a discussion > here.) Can you please clarify? This is getting murky. > > That a dhamma arises, is present, and falls away is not to say it > 'acts' it is to say that this is the nature of things. >>>>>>>> All I am saying is that in order to emperically exist, a unit must be DEPENDENTLY ARISEN WITHOUT ATTA. If it is "atta" then it cannot interact. >>>>> > A: "In this case it was about Dhamma or Panna 'eye'." > Scott: Do you mean pa~n~naa cetasika? >>>>>> I am not familiar with the above terminology. I was talking about unperverted/undefiled asava-less perception. > A: "Satipathana= seeing phenomenon > a) as they are without adding or subtracting anything > b) seeing it for what it is: DO process (and thus anicca-dukha- > anatta). > Consists of body-rupa skandha, > feeling-vedana skandha, > mind-vinnana skandha, > mental qualities = sankhara+sanna skandhas." > > Scott: Um, this is a wee bit confusing Alex. Sorry. I can't follow > this. Any chance of a clarification here as well? We might want to > revisit the original question. This is really losing focus. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > I was talking about "seeing things as they really are". Or a "mode of emptiness" where asavas do not add or subtract anything. Lots of Metta, Alex #78498 From: Dieter Möller Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 10:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) moellerdieter Hi Ken H , Tep and .., you wrote: (D: yes.. I would be quite surprised to find a strange statement like above to be said/written by the Venerable) ---------------- In what way is it strange? D: assumed no misunderstanding due to ' above ' i.e. refering to : '3) after parinibbana the self is free to "wander wherever it pleases." , again a rhetorical question , Ken? ;-) K: (D:I don't think so.. certainly a large proportion of Buddhists accept the samsaric reality but hope and believe they may be able to be free of it by the guidance of the Dhamma and realize nibbana ..somewhere in future...) Before my Abhidhamma-studies began I would have shared those sentiments, but now I shy away from that kind of language. It gives the impression of a lasting soul, or self, that is now unfree and will later be free. D: I think the sentiment of the vast majority is : not yet being prepared to walk the Path directly , not yet being able to detach consequently by the Noble Path training.. accepting more or less 'the world as it is presented to them ' and assume your preference for 'Abhidhamma language ' shows distance from that view. Your impression of 'self, that is now unfree and will later be free' seems to me the western idea of I/self transcendence. K: Yes, but it wasn't about this kind of thing. James had a discussion with them on another matter. I don't think they would be prepared to discuss Abhidhamma. There is no Abhidhamma Pitaka material on their site and they say they intend to keep it that way. D: as Sutta Pitaka and Abhidhamma Pitaka should not contradict eachother , I don't think there is a need for A.P. material available to answer to the critics . But let us try to get some kind of consens before. K: I read somewhere that, in their opinion, the Abhidhamma is not helpful to meditation. That was some time ago; I don't know if that specific comment in still there. D: Ken, honestly , I think the view of the so-called 'Abhidhammica group' within inDSG is not very helpful in respect to the meditation/samadhi part of the 3 fold Noble Path training (moral,meditation,wisdom) and claim that there are other DSG members too who share this impression. K: KH: > > > <. . .> #34543 <. . .> As for interpretations of Thanissaro's writings, please look at another old post of mine - 34782 - and tell me what you think. (D: I will do .. but perhaps we have a start for exchange already .. ;-)- ---I'd be grateful if you and Tep would have a quick look at them (and at the other posts Sarah mentioned). I won't have much computer time over the next couple of days, so there's no hurry. :-) D: let us limit it so far to the 2 sources you mentioned.. and leave it to you to quote from the related messages , Sarah wrote about. Please see as well my mail to Tep. with Metta Dieter #78499 From: Elaine Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 10:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] To Nina - Thank you (with metta and respect) :-)) shennieca Hi Nina, Thank you soo much for your e-m. I was worried the whole night thinking about it and didn't sleep very well but I feel better now after reading your reply. :-)) Nina: When you help others, parents or friends, do you notice also that sometimes you have enthusiasm and happy feeling when doing so, and at other times there is no such happy feeling, but you know that you have to do your duty? ---- Elaine: When my help is appreciated I'll feel happy about it. But when it is not appreciated, but if I really love that person, I'd still help even if I'm not happy. How about you, do you feel that way too? :-)) May all beings be well and happy! May we be mindful in every moment. With metta and respect, Elaine ------------------- N: We ordinary people cannot experience all that is in the Abhidhamma. By the way I am not a teacher, but a student. I agree with many things you write: it is experience that is important. Before we continue, may I ask you a question? When you help others, parents or friends, do you notice also that sometimes you have enthusiasm and happy feeling when doing so, and at other times there is no such happy feeling, but you know that you have to do your duty? #78500 From: Dieter Möller Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) moellerdieter Hi Tep and Ken H and.., hopefully I do not spoil the fun of the observer ;-) by suggesting that you take up first message 34543 whereas I follow later with a comment to 34782 , as we both picked up the issue.. (?) with Metta Dieter #78501 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:46 am Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Thanks for the clarifications: A: "I was talking about a perception of meat that we call an "eye". To see you need optic nerve, and other things (including mind- consiousness)." Scott: Do you mean taking an actual eye-ball and 'perceiving' it? Like holding it in your hand, licking it, looking at it (with your other eye - ha ha), smelling it, thinking about it? I'm sorry to say that 'optic nerve' is concept based on meat. In the above there is a mixture of a wee bit of Dhamma with very rudimentary neurophysiology. A: "Visible object can't be outside of visual consciosness. Same with rupa. That does NOT mean that outside of consciousness there is nothing. It means that consiousness must be present to define anything." Scott: There must be something for consciousness to cognise. You seem to suggest that visible object and visual consciousness are somehow contained in one. A: "What I've said, or tried to say was: When we talk about something we talk about a fact of experience. What lies beyond experience is a) unprovable. b) undefinable. c) ultimately irrelevant." Scott: 'When we talk about something'. But 'talking about something' is not what it seems. Talking about something is sound. And a whole lot of conceptualising. A: "Dependently arisen events. Not static entities." Scott: Event is "a thing that happens or takes place" (Oxford). Entity is "a thing with distinct and independent existence." (Also Oxford). Strictly speaking, since all conditioned dhammas are related through conditions they do not have independent existence. They do happen or take place, however, and are distinct in my view. A: "eye consciousness is different from lets say ear consciousness. Body feelings are different from mind feelings. But what is the difference between eye consciousness and its content? You can't separate qualities and so called 'object'." Scott: I agree that eye conciousness is totally different and separate from the other five. Consciousness is separate from its object. This is the intricacy of conditionality. Without even a wee bit of theoretical structure your views tend towards boundarilessness. A: "Visual perception has to come WITH visual form." Scott: I know you are mixing the mundane and conceptual notions of the physiology of the eye and the visual cortex, rudimentary psychology of perception with Dhamma and coming up with stew. Eye consciousness has an object. One is the conditioning dhamma, the other the conditioned but they are in no way mixed together somehow. Me: "Are you saying that ruupa is artificially created by mind?" A: "In a certain way YES. Through volition (kamma) future ruupa will appear. This is strait from the Buddha's lips." Scott: This does not in any way support your assumption that there is no differentiating naama from ruupa. A: "I am saying that it is incorrect to regard anything as atta or as having self characteristics. Everything is INTERDEPENDENT rather than a static entity or non-entity." Scott: Again with the absence of boundaries. 'Interdependence' does not exclude presence. A: "When there is no self, there is no other... Thus ultimately any sorts of measuring, conceits, etc are not ultimate, final or eternal." Scott: The person is a concept. The aggregates have ultimate reality. Conceit, for example, is an actual mental factor - paramattha dhamma. A: "Our intellect goes as far as the 6 senses go and not further. We cannot perceive unperceivable. Consciousness MUST be present to define anything even as (existence, non-existence, both, neither)." Scott: 'Our intellect' is concept. 'We' are not consciousness. I don't deny the necessity of consciousness in the process of existence. I say it is 'citta' a reality - paramattha dhamma. A: "All I am saying is that in order to emperically exist, a unit must be DEPENDENTLY ARISEN WITHOUT ATTA. If it is "atta" then it cannot interact." Scott: What do you mean by 'empirically exist'? Who is the scientist? Are there or are there not 'units' (entities)? A: "In this case it was about Dhamma or Panna 'eye'." Me: Do you mean pa~n~naa cetasika?" A: "I am not familiar with the above terminology. I was talking about unperverted/undefiled asava-less perception." Scott: Pa~n~naa cetasika is a mental factor. It has its own characteristic, by which I mean, it *is* this characteristic - it doesn't *do* these things. Pa~n~naa is 'insight'. Here, from Dhammasa"nga.ni, the first volume of the Abhidhamma, is the definition: "The insight which there is on that occasion is understanding, search, research, searching the Doctrine, discernment, discrimination, differentiation, erudition, proficiency, subtlety, criticism, reflection, analysis, breadth, sagacity, a 'guide', intuition, intelligence, a 'goad', wisdom as power...a sword...a height...light...glory...splendour...a precious stone...the absence of dullness, searching for the Truth, right views - this is the wisdom that there then is." Scott: Dig it, man. That is really something. A: "I was talking about "seeing things as they really are". Or a "mode of emptiness" where asavas do not add or subtract anything." Scott: More rhetoric maybe? Sincerely, Scott. #78502 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:01 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) buddhistmedi... Hi Dieter and ken H, - You ain't seen nothing yet ! >D: > hopefully I do not spoil the fun of the observer ;-) by suggesting that you take up first message 34543 whereas I follow later with a comment to 34782 , as we both picked up the issue.. (?) T: That is a 60% reduction in my former assigned workload, Dieter. I gladdly accept it, although I already finished reading both messages. The first (#34543) is a bit shorter than the second (about two-thirds), and that shows your un-selfish spirit to take a bigger chunk. :-)) Well, I'll help you arm-wrestling with KenH too. But I do not think he's got big biceps at all. Tep === #78503 From: mlnease Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:09 pm Subject: Re: sound. [dsg] Realities and Concepts (1) m_nease Hi DC, DC: There is a fantastic book (unfortunately in Sinhala). It is called "Deceiving dhammas". The book is by Rerukaane Chandavimala. Foremost abhidhammika of the last century in Sri Lanka. We got at least a condensed translation of these several years ago from our old friend Gayan (not around these days, unfortunately). These are archived at Cheating (vancaka) Dhammas 3543 , 3544 , 3545 , 10517 . As I recall these are the same posted at http://www.abhidhamma.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t88.html : "The 'vangceti's only appear there (and nowhere else); even there its only as just small phrases without explanations. Examples and notes are from a Sri Lankan monk who was well versed in all three pitakas, [Ven. R. Chandavimala (1897-1997)], written in 1947. In the preface the venerable says: "There are 38 vangcaka dhammas mentioned in netthippakarana atthakatha. But they are mentioned only namely. There are two tikas for the atthakatha but vangcaka dhammas are not mentioned in any of them." "These arise in a mind that has developed a certain disliking towards akusalas. The akusala dhammas disguise themselves according to the mind's 'tendency' or mentality,(as the mud gets the shape of the object that pressed onto it.)" I'm glad to read that you appreciate at least this much abhidhamma. I think these are priceless. mike #78504 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:16 pm Subject: KenH's Thoughts on Self and No Self buddhistmedi... Hi KenH (and Dieter), - Let me make a comment on KH's message #34543 to the lucky-man Victor who later became a monk in the Ven Thanissaro's monastery. Might that be a proof that he knew that your self views should be ignored? >KenH: Hi Victor, Yes, don't worry, I have been reading all your posts. This one is only a few days old. It is the first in a trilogy: 1, the Abhidhamma teaches paramattha dhammas 2, paramatha dhammas are metaphysics and 3, metaphysics are wrong view. I know you mean well, Victor, but do you know where this path of yours is leading? Beware of the most popular (and most simplistic) of all religious beliefs: namely, that there is only one Truth, God or Universal Soul and, eventually, we will all be reunited with it: All the great teachers -- Moses, Gotama, Jesus, Mohammed -- taught the same Truth but in different ways. The way taught by the Buddha was especially tricky: it was a `not-self' way of bringing us back to our Eternal Self. You might think I am being paranoid, but consider this quote from Access to Insight: "In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no- self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?" (end quote) So the Buddha did not really teach anatta at all! That was just a ruse to lead us back to our eternal soul. ............. T: Your hypothesis is interesting. Why are "our Eternal Selfs" outside ourselves, Ken? And what about our selfs that are inside (if there were such things)? How can the two different kinds of self unify with the Universal Soul? It is even more puzzling to me when I think about the other Gods in addition to the Universal Soul and the Eternal Selfs (how many of them are there, as of your last count?). Will there be enough rooms to accommodate them all in one place with the Universal Soul? No, I think the venerable is smart enough not to "lead us back to the Eternal Soul"; that would not lead us to Undying Happiness, but only to a chaos can it be expected. [Have you ever tried to reserve a hotel room near the Niagara Falls for December 15-25 ?] .............. >Ken H: Don't be taken in by this New Buddhism, Victor. It can only be sustained if we discredit first, the ancient commentaries, then the Abhidhamma and then the Suttanta and the Vinaya. What will we put in their place, the Holy Bible? T: Or the Koran. .............. >Ken H: The Buddha predicted this would happen. The true Dhamma comes to light for a while, then it is discredited and the world is plunged back into darkness. During an interminable reign of Wrong View, the only known hope is for an eternal soul and the only known alternative is annihilation. No wonder the Buddha said that Wrong View (eternalism / annihilationism) was the greatest of all evils. T: Can you give us the sutta reference in which the Buddha said that "Wrong View (eternalism / annihilationism) was the greatest of all evils"? I ask so because I have not seen that sutta. More important how can KenH be sure that he has got 'the Right View' that will protect him against the coming Dark Time? .............. >Ken H: Should we get depressed about this great evil? How many tortured souls will be turned on the wheel of samsara? A trillion, a zillion, a zillion zillion? No, according to the Buddha, not a single soul will suffer. There is no soul, there are only dhammas. Wrong View is only a conditioned dhamma and as such, it is anicca, dukkha and anatta. There is no `you' `me' `them' or `us.' Good news, don't you think? :-) T: Yes, it is a good news if there are only the dhammas but no KenH, because that's when Tep may have a true peace of mind. ;-)) ........... Kind regards, Ken H ............. Tep === #78505 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:16 pm Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) philofillet HI Matt I really enjoy your posts for some reason - always have, always will - even when I don't agree with everything. Hope there will be more of them. (Maybe the reason I enjoy them so much is that there are so few of them!) > It is due to ignorance if there are only concepts and no understanding of > dhammas that make up concepts. Clinging to concepts, particularly the idea > that there is a self, is an obstacle to insight into the true nature of > realities and the understanding of no self. One thing I find myself thinking about these days is "how do we know that our awareness of dhammas is not just more clinging to concepts" because it seems to me that most of what I see in Abhidhamma will not be object of awareness but could be turned into a conceptual object of clinging by a mind too eager for wisdom. And because this object is defined as "paramattha" one might be more likely to fail to see it as a concept that one is clinging to. I don't know if that is clear.... ...also, Matt, I find myself thinking a lot about a talk you had with Christine and others, about "does the spice go out of life." I think I've mentionned this before. I'd like to discuss it with you at some point. I think the spice *does* go out of life to some point, must go out, that this is a necessary aspect of the cooling down of proliferation. And if it doesn't go out, the practice is not succeeding in its early stages. Anyways, talk to you about that later. :) Metta, Phil #78506 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:19 pm Subject: Re: How to track down Pali (for Scott or Connie) philofillet Allo. > Dear Phil, > > P: "Merci bouquet!" > > Scott: Il n'y a pas de quoi. Il n'y a pas de soi. le boudha n'a pas dit ca! le boudha n'a pas dit ca! DIS MOI DONC OU LE BOUDHA A DIT CA! oh la la c'est la guerre de pas de soi! haha le metta, phil #78507 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:34 pm Subject: Re: How to track down Pali (for Scott or Connie) scottduncan2 Cher Phil, Je te remercie pour: P: "Il n'y a pas de soi. le boudha n'a pas dit ca! le boudha n'a pas dit ca! DIS MOI DONC OU LE BOUDHA A DIT CA! oh la la c'est la guerre de pas de soi! haha" S: Qu'elle drole de l'homme rigolo, ce Phil la, ostil! [For the non-French speakers, it is yet another blow to our beloved anatta-thoughts. For the French speakers, I apologise for my abysmal French.] Sincerely, Scott. #78508 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:59 pm Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) truth_aerator Dear Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Thanks for the clarifications: > > A: "I was talking about a perception of meat that we call an "eye". To > see you need optic nerve, and other things (including mind- > consiousness)." > > Scott: Do you mean taking an actual eye-ball and 'perceiving' it? > Like holding it in your hand, licking it, looking at it (with your > other eye - ha ha), smelling it, thinking about it? I'm sorry to say > that 'optic nerve' is concept based on meat. In the above there is a > mixture of a wee bit of Dhamma with very rudimentary neurophysiology. >>>>>> 4 elements + nama is a perception. Is that clearer? Space & time too. Don't mistake it for idealism. > > Scott: There must be something for consciousness to cognise. You seem > to suggest that visible object and visual consciousness are somehow > contained in one. >>>>>> You cognize only your own consciousness. An "outside" object has to be "inside" your consciousness for you to be able to perceive it. > A: "What I've said, or tried to say was: When we talk about something > we talk about a fact of experience. What lies beyond experience is > a) unprovable. > b) undefinable. > c) ultimately irrelevant." > > Scott: 'When we talk about something'. But 'talking about something' is not what it seems. Talking about something is sound. And a whole lot of conceptualising. >>>>>>>> Exactly, our world is the product of the 6 consciousness& perceptions. Sound is a perception. > > A: "Dependently arisen events. Not static entities." > > Scott: Event is "a thing that happens or takes place" (Oxford). >>>>> Event here I mean more of a verb than a noun. "Happens, TAKES PLACE" . It is cognized IN A CONSCIOUSNESS. Just like in dreams one does NOT need to have external objects or subjects. And just like in a dream one may not be able to "control" ones mind. >>> > Entity is "a thing with distinct and independent existence." (Also > Oxford). >>>>> I didn't speak about "entities". Please don't reify (or atta-ize) concepts and events (verbs). > Scott: I agree that eye conciousness is totally different and separate > from the other five. Consciousness is separate from its object. This > is the intricacy of conditionality. Without even a wee bit of > theoretical structure your views tend towards boundarilessness. >>>> Consciousness needs something to be conscious off. You can't have consciousness and object in two different "places". > Me: "Are you saying that ruupa is artificially created by mind?" > > A: "In a certain way YES. Through volition (kamma) future ruupa will appear. This is strait from the Buddha's lips." > > Scott: This does not in any way support your assumption that there is no differentiating naama from ruupa. >>>> Nama is one set of consciousness, rupa is another. In this way they are different, but in a way that they are conscious experiences in this way they are similiar. > > A: "I am saying that it is incorrect to regard anything as atta or as > having self characteristics. Everything is INTERDEPENDENT rather than > a static entity or non-entity." > > Scott: Again with the absence of boundaries. 'Interdependence' does > not exclude presence. >>>>> Yes there is presence or "a fact of experience". However one should NOT reify these experiences. I mean in a dream one can see cities, people, animals, etc etc - yet they are all illusionary, even though they may behave AS IF they exist objectively. > A: "When there is no self, there is no other... Thus ultimately any > sorts of measuring, conceits, etc are not ultimate, final or eternal." > > Scott: The person is a concept. The aggregates have ultimate reality. ??>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT IS TOTALLY OFF BASE! If aggregates have ultimate reality (Buddha NEVER said this) then it wouldn't be possible to escape from ultimate reality of the aggregates. --- SN22.95 – Foam : "Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick -- this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately. ----- >>>>> Conceit, for example, is an actual mental factor - paramattha dhamma. >>>>>> Same as above. > A: "Our intellect goes as far as the 6 senses go and not further. We > cannot perceive unperceivable. Consciousness MUST be present to > define anything even as (existence, non-existence, both, neither)." > > Scott: 'Our intellect' is concept. 'We' are not consciousness. I > don't deny the necessity of consciousness in the process of existence. > I say it is 'citta' a reality - paramattha dhamma. >>>> Regarding Ultimates - see above . > A: "All I am saying is that in order to emperically exist, a unit must > be DEPENDENTLY ARISEN WITHOUT ATTA. If it is "atta" then it cannot > interact." > > Scott: What do you mean by 'empirically exist'? >>>>>>>>> A fact of experience available to us all. >>>>> > Scott: Pa~n~naa cetasika is a mental factor. It has its own > characteristic, by which I mean, it *is* this characteristic - it > doesn't *do* these things. Pa~n~naa is 'insight'. Here, from > Dhammasa"nga.ni, the first volume of the Abhidhamma, is the definition: > > "The insight which there is on that occasion is understanding, search, > research, searching the Doctrine, discernment, discrimination, > differentiation, erudition, proficiency, subtlety, criticism, > reflection, analysis, breadth, sagacity, a 'guide', intuition, > intelligence, a 'goad', wisdom as power...a sword...a > height...light...glory...splendour...a precious stone...the absence of > dullness, searching for the Truth, right views - this is the wisdom > that there then is." > > Scott: Dig it, man. That is really something. > >>> A lot of words... I prefer to use simply the "lack of hindrances/perversions/ignorance", Lots of Metta, Alex #78509 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:11 pm Subject: Re: How to track down Pali nichiconn Dear Scott, what, are you insane? the student/nerd should initially learn to read pali out of native character. peace, connie #78510 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:48 pm Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) nichiconn Dear Scott, Alex, just a bit of a longish quote in the interests of seeing eye to eye (ok, just an excuse to type), from the introduction to THE BOOK OF ANALYSIS, p. xxvii: << Bases are of two kinds. (a) Those bases which, acting as a support for elements of consciousness, possess the property of enabling that consciousness to arise into activity when they are impinged upon by an appropriate stimulus. These are the senses bases, viz., eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind. (b) Those bases which, as objects, act as supports for those unique qualities or elements (dhaatu) which give to objects their innate properties of bringing the sense bases into activity when under appropriate conditions they impinge upon those bases. These are the object bases, viz., visible base, audible base, odorous base, sapid base, tangible base and ideational base. Thus it is that out of the fundamental arrangement of aggregates there arise the more complex structures known as bases, each of which possesses a unitary quality differentiating it quite clearly and completely from the others, an absolute quality which cannot be described in more elementary form. In speaking of the six sense bases, however, it is not intended that in each case the whole sense organ as we ordinarily think of it is to be understood. Here in this second chapter dealing with the consideration of base, although there is a short Suttanta analysis, it is considered almost entirely from the aspect of Abhidhamma analysis. This means that it is to be interpreted only in its ultimate and technical sense. Sense base means, therefore, so far as location is ocncerned, that particular point, plane or area which forms a common frontier between the impact of an appropriate sense stimulus and the arising of a conscious state as the result of that stimulus. Thus, for example, it is not the whole organ of the eye with its iris, pupil, lens, humours, muscles and the retina that is here intended, but only that extremely subtle point at which it may be said that the purely physical activity of visual stimulation ends and consciousness of that stimulation begins. In five aggregate existence the six sense bases consist of material qualities derived from the four great essentials; however, from what has been said above it should be appreciated that the material qualities referred to are of an extremely subtle and special nature, for it is by way of these bases and their contact with the stimulus, or object, that active consciousness concerning the object is able to arise. >> end quote. peace, connie #78511 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:50 pm Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Thanks for the reply: A: "4 elements + nama is a perception....Space & time too...You cognize only your own consciousness. An "outside" object has to be "inside" your consciousness for you to be able to perceive it... Exactly, our world is the product of the 6 consciousness& perceptions. Sound is a perception...Event here I mean more of a verb than a noun. 'Happens, TAKES PLACE' It is cognized IN A CONSCIOUSNESS...I didn't speak about 'entities'. Please don't reify (or atta-ize) concepts and events (verbs)...Consciousness needs something to be conscious off. You can't have consciousness and object in two different 'places'... Nama is one set of consciousness, rupa is another. In this way they are different, but in a way that they are conscious experiences in this way they are similiar...Yes there is presence or "a fact of experience". However one should NOT reify these experiences. I mean in a dream one can see cities, people, animals, etc etc - yet they are all illusionary, even though they may behave AS IF they exist objectively...If aggregates have ultimate reality (Buddha NEVER said this) then it wouldn't be possible to escape from ultimate reality of the aggregates...A fact of experience available to us all..." Scott: This amounts, in my opinion, to a treatise on the tenets of the Mind-Only school of Mahayana Buddhism. This is fine, but I think, since you seem so convinced, perhaps we should stop for now. Thanks for the discussion. http://www.buddhismtoday.com/english/philosophy/maha/004-mind.htm "First, the school put forward the view that a single object appears differently to different sentient beings...A single object appears differently to different beings in samsara according to their respective karma...an object appears in different forms according to the conditioned, subjective state of the mind...Second, the Mind Only school made extensive use of the analogy of dreaming, arguing that in dreams the mind creates and projects a world which, for all intents and purposes, it experiences as real as long as the dream state prevails...Third, the Mind Only school rejected the independent existence of objects by exposing the infinite divisibility of matter...Through these arguments rejecting the existence of material objects, Mind Only philosophers established the relativity of subject and object, the identity of the objects of consciousness with consciousness itself." Sincerely, Scott. #78512 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:01 pm Subject: Re: How to track down Pali scottduncan2 Dear First Fiddle, c: "what, are you insane?" Scott: Yes. Sorry. c: "...the student/nerd should initially learn to read pali out of native character." Scott: I bow to you. Sincerely, Scott. #78513 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:07 pm Subject: Re: sound. [dsg] Realities and Concepts (1) dcwijeratna Dear Mike, Thank you for e-m regarding the Ven. Chandawimala's book. In your response you quote my statement: ******"DC: There is a fantastic book (unfortunately in Sinhala). It is called "Deceiving dhammas". The book is by Rerukaane Chandavimala. Foremost abhidhammika of the last century in Sri Lanka.********* Then you conclude: *******I'm glad to read that you appreciate at least this much abhidhamma. I think these are priceless.********* I hope I have understood your conclusion properly. Let me just clarify a few things regarding my first statement. 1. First, the intention there was just to give the reference. 2. What I have said is that Ven. Chandavimala was the foremost "abhidhammika" .... There is nothing to indicate my attitude to Abhidhamma in that statement. 3. Therefore an inference about "my attitude" is not warranted. Therefore your conclusion need to be discussed separately. As a statement of yours without any reference to what you have quoted. 4. My statement refers to some facts to the best of my knowledge. On the other hand, your statement is about my mind. It is not clear to me how you learnt about my mind. May be reading something else that I have written. 5. That is a dangerous path, and can lead to lot of misunderstandings. First, because you may be taking out of context. There is a sutta in the Anguttara Nikaaya, Kesi sutta, where the Buddha says that "Yes, I kill,.." If you take that statement out of context, you can conclude that the Buddha had said that he was a killer. 6. The other comes from a different direction: The dhamma teaches that we cannot know another's mind without what is described as "paracitta vijaanana ~naa.na", nobody can know another person's mind. 7. Let me explain. 8. Whatever, the statements I made about "Abhidhamma" was to fit for that particular context. 9. Now let me give you some information about my attitude to "Abhidhamma" 10. I distinguish between "Abhidhamma" and "Abhidhamma Pi.taka". What I know, [that means there is verifiable evidence], is that 'Abhidhamma Pi.taka' is a later development. Not expounded by the Buddha. A.t.thakathaa is of course outside the Tipi.taka. 11. Both these were developed in order to assist the study of the Dhamma-the Teaching of the Dhamma. The suttas record the direct dialogues of the Buddha and hence Dhamma. 12. The meaning of the word "Abhidhamma" is a puzzle. There is no agreed definition of the word. 14. Abhidhamma Pi.taka (Theravaada), on the other hand is clear--the seven books of the Abhidhamma Pi.taka. [Even here there is a big issue: The seven books of Abhidhamma Pi.taka of the Sarvaastivaada] 15. Nettippakara.na is really a part of Khuddhaka Nikaaya according to Theravaada classification. It is therefore not part of Abhidhamma Pi.taka. Nor the A.t.thakatha. 16. The total Abhidhamma literature is the Abhidhamma pi.taka, abhidhamma commentaries; handbooks like Abhidhammattha Sangaha. There are substantial differences among these. 17. Use of the Abhidhamma literature as equal to Abhidhamma is therefore a problem. 18. Really the issue is the use of this later stuff as Dhamma. Recently one case came to light in the DSG. Where they adopted a Abhidhammattha sa.ngaha in preference to sutta. 19. Now my attitude to both Abhidhamma and Commentaries or even later literature. Abhidhamma I have very little use: the reason is simple, I don't know what 'Abhidhamma' is. Commentaries are indispensable to the understanding of the Suttas. On the other hand, one needs to adopt the "middle stance"--"the middle way". There is so much of stuff there, that are exaggerations. Sometimes there is complete change from the Suttas. So Commentaries are necessary but you need to read it very carefully. 10. You may be surprised when I say "I don't know what 'Abhidhamma' is. The reason is what I have given in (6). I don't know the mind of others--and because of di.t.thi vipallaasa not even my own mind. So I have written a lot. What I have written above may not be coherent. If so please forgive me; my inability to express myself. In short my attitude to Abhidhamma Pi.taka is: "I don't understand it". Nor do I understand the meaning of the word Abhidhamma. The question of "appreciation" or otherwise of Abhidhamma does not arise, therefore. Many thanks for giving me an opportunity to make my position regarding "Abhidhamma Literature" explicit. Kind regards, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #78514 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:14 pm Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) scottduncan2 Dear connie, Thanks for the reply: c: "just a bit of a longish quote in the interests of seeing eye to eye...Sense base means, therefore, so far as location is concerned, that particular point, plane or area which forms a common frontier between the impact of an appropriate sense stimulus and the arising of a conscious state as the result of that stimulus...In five aggregate existence the six sense bases consist of material qualities derived from the four great essentials...it is by way of these bases and their contact with the stimulus, or object, that active consciousness concerning the object is able to arise. Scott: I dig it. Having precipitously fallen out of the discussion, should Alex return, so too might eye. Ha. Get it? Eye? I?. Nerd joke. Sincerely, Scott. #78515 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:43 pm Subject: Some well deserved questions/Further conciderations reverendagga... Howard; i was discussing nothing that resides permanently as a template for physical form.The so called "occultists"are not either.This is why they refer to it as something that can be changed as a percieved form at will.As an example one may wish to refer to Dr. Robert Monroe's research and work in this field. "Certain mind states are arising rather than others" Presumeably because they just so happened to have arisen and bumped into each other again away from where the mind was used to percieving those mind states!(oops! why hello there again! Fancy meeting YOU here again!). That there is no such thing as "no self" i would concur with. Nothing has essence? Merriam Websters Dictionary:essence;noun 1a The permanent as contrasted with the accidental element of being.What we are talking about is neither permanent nor accidental.C.The properties or attributes by means of which something can be placed in its proper class or identified as being what it is.2.Something that exists- entity. Have you concidered that what you deny as essence is actually a permanent state of flux? i would therefore not agree that nothing has essence. i was not speaking of "we" who walk through walls but an "it". The point is just what is "it"that is doing this? A "certain mind state" that just so happens to be arising rather than another?The mind can apparently at will,transfer it's consciousness to another point in time space.You call this simply a"certain mind state"?!! "An allegded soul in anything is defined as it's claimed unchanging,self existent,independant essence" Merriam Websters Dictionary:Soul;noun 2a The spiritual principle enbodied in human beings,all rational and spiritual beings or the universe.4a An active or essential part. Of all of the definitions given though,none would seem to concur with yours. Ven.Gotama rejected the two extremes of anilism and eternalism, therefore in denying both he confirms both.Let me give an example; under the former communist state of the Soviet Union nobody owned anything because everybody owned everything!There is no anilism or eternalism because there is both.Please allow me to further explain;we are talking about phenomena that is arising,existing, and ceasing to exist.It is the on going eternal process of existence and the on going anilation of that existence at one and the same time.This is why Ven.Gotama denied one or the other. i believe i understand the dhamma of "no self" just fine. No Angels?Please refer to the Dhp.Ch.26 verse#420 for a further look on this matter.Some would translate it as gandhabba, however as a gandhabba is discussed as a condition for REBIRTH in M.N.sutta #38 that interpretation would clearly be in error as regards the context of Dhp.CH.26 verse#420.This is why the the translation is usually "angels". Your Mahayana Diamond suttra quotation does not impress me. i sincerely believe that it is a twisted distortion of Ven.Gotama's dhamma.RE;life as "a phantom and a dream". Why should we concern ourselves with a moral life and it's positive kammic consequences and an immoral life and the negitive kammic consequences in this life as well as after any "relinking of consciousness"if were after all only talking of a "bubble and a flash" only a "phantom and a dream"? i believe that this is an esotericly disguised form of nilistic "Buddha Dhamma" and is not only a gross distortion of Ven. Gotama's teaching but an insult to the spiritual endevors of humanity humanity as well, having been put forth for something more than a "bubble and a flash". i sincerely appreciate your contributions put forth and your time spent discussing this matter.Please do not take anything as an offence with the intention to disturb any ones peace of mind. i simply believe that these matters deserve to be treated honestly and that hopefully we all have the spiritual maturity to do so. Once again, thank you for your time and efforts on my behalf as well as for your time graciously spent for the benefit of others. May the Buddha's, Deva,and Angel's bless ALL of you! bhikkhu aggacitto/aka reverend aggacitto #78516 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 9:12 pm Subject: Re: KenH's Thoughts on Self and No Self rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: \> T: Can you give us the sutta reference in which the Buddha said > that "Wrong View (eternalism / annihilationism) was the greatest of > all evils"? I ask so because I have not seen that sutta. \ ________ Dear Tep, ""Monks I know not of any other single thing so greatly to be blamed as perverted view. Perverted views at their worst are greatly to be blamed". Anguttara Nikaya 1,17,10. Chapter XVIII Makkhali (page 29 gradual sayings vol.I) The perverted views at their worst are annilhilationism (thinking there is no rebirth depending on kamma) Robert #78517 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 10:05 pm Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) nichiconn Dear Scott, Aye, got yer joke alright. You don't think I'm a nerd, do ya? Roman characters all the way for me. Still, gotta kiss the old rosetta stone once in awhile. a few pages down the road from the last quote: Book of Analysis, Intro. p.xlviii << if wrong practice occurs the obvious causal outcome will not be directed toward the cessation of suffering but will result in its increase, and with that the consequent discomfiture arising from all the concomitant states attendant thereon. >> now here comes the discouraging part: p.xlix: << This is where the Abhidhamma method with its use of absolute classifications is so valuable, for it enables the student to see clearly the "whys and wherefores" of every stage and section of his practice, and to realize the essential continuity and inter-connectedness of what he is doing. >> a tid-bit of comfort food on p.liv where << here Doubt (vicikiccha) only means "absence of thinking about" (vigataa cikicchaa. VSM 471). >> peace, connie #78518 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:40 pm Subject: Re: Perfections Corner (35) nichiconn thank you, Han. i also have beads, by the way. i forget the significances of all the different beads now... different body parts and whatever. they're pretty cool, though. as things go. a tool to help the ignorant can't be all bad, i reckon. peace, connie the aggregate of material quality ... Is neither cumulative nor dispersive (of continuining rebirth and death). #78519 From: Dhammanando Bhikkhu Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:15 am Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) dhammanando_... Dear Sarah, >> Dh: Tusita devas don't live long enough for this to be possible. For >> that matter, neither does Tusita itself. The destructions and >> evolutions of the Cakkavaa.la that occur in the interval between two >> Buddhas leave only certain of the highest Brahma heavens intact. > S: I know this is a rather academic point, but would you kindly give > me a reference to the last line? The main source that treats cosmic destruction and evolution in detail would be the exposition of recollection of former lives (pubbenivaasaanussati) in the Visuddhimagga (_Path of Purification_ XIII 28-65). Further details are given in the accounts of pubbenivaasaanussati in the commentaries to the Vinaya Pi.taka and Pa.tisambhidaamagga, but these are not yet translated. Until they are, the English reader may consult _The Three Worlds according to King Ruang: a Thai Buddhist Cosmology_. This is Frank and Mani Reynolds' translation of the Traibhuumikathaa, a 14th century Siamese treatise on cosmology. Though the work has a few provincialist quirks to it, on the whole it's based squarely on the Pali texts and usefully collates a lot of commentarial material that is not otherwise available in English. > p.s Also was sorry to hear about your illness and hope you're fully > recoverd. Thanks, I'm recovered now. :) Best wishes, Dhammanando #78520 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:16 am Subject: Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, no 12. nilovg Dear friends, Dhammas are ephemeral, many conditions must coincide for one moment of seeing. We take seeing for granted and we think that it lasts, that we can control it. We see and then we remember what it is, but it is no longer there. How could we direct or control a reality that has fallen away already? Nåma and rúpa do not belong to anybody, they are beyond control, non-self. We cannot select the dhammas that appear now, seeing or hearing have arisen already. We have to see, we have to hear, we have to be born again and again so that we see, hear and experience objects through the six doors. We cannot select what reality arises at a particular moment, but understanding of them can be gradually developed. The Buddha taught the Abhidhamma to the devas in the Heaven of the Thirtythree, and he also taught vipassanå when he expounded the Discourse on “One Single Excellent Night”. He used conventional expressions in the sutta, when he said that one should not cling to the past nor desire for the future, but attend to the present moment. We read in the Commentary to the “Discourse on no Blemishes” (Middle Length Sayings I, no 5): There is a twofold teaching of the Buddha, the Blessed One: the teaching in the conventional way and the teaching by way of ultimate realities. There is a human, a being, a woman, a man, a man of the warrior caste, a brahman, a god, and Måra. Such is the teaching in the conventional way. Impermanence, dukkha, anattå, the aggregates, the elements, the sensefields (åyatanas), satipaììhåna. Such is the teaching by way of ultimate realities. Here the Blessed One taught to those in the conventional way who by means of it, after having heard the teaching, penetrated the meaning and abandoned ignorance, and were skilled to attain distinction. But he taught by way of ultimate realities to those who, after having heard the teaching, penetrated the meaning and abandoned ignorance, and were skilled to attain distinction. Also when the Buddha taught by way of conventional terms he explained what is dhamma: namely, what appears right now. ****** Nina. #78521 From: han tun Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (35) hantun1 Dear Connie, I am glad that you have the beads also. I use the beads to reflect the Nine Attributes of the Buddha, pressing on one bead for each attribute. By the way, I found another piece of information with regard to the truthfulness. Mahaa Narada Thera, in his book, The Buddha and His Teachings, wrote: “By sacca is here meant the fulfillment of one’s promise. This is one of the salient characteristics of a Bodhisatta, for he is no breaker of his word. He acts as he speaks, and he speaks as he acts (yathaa-vaadi tathaa-kaari, yathaa-kaari tathaa-vadi).” Thus, if we keep our promise, if we act as we speak and if we speak as we act, we are developing the Perfection of Truthfulness in our daily life. With metta and respect, Han --- L G SAGE wrote: > thank you, Han. > i also have beads, by the way. i forget the > significances of all the different beads now... > different body parts and whatever. they're pretty > cool, though. as things go. a tool to help the > ignorant can't be all bad, i reckon. > peace, > connie #78523 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:03 am Subject: Re: KenH's Thoughts on Self and No Self buddhistmedi... Hello RobK (KenH and Dieter), - Long time no conversation! > > T: Can you give us the sutta reference in which the Buddha said > > that "Wrong View (eternalism / annihilationism) was the greatest of > > all evils"? I ask so because I have not seen that sutta. \ > ________ > Dear Tep, > ""Monks I know not of any other single thing so greatly to be blamed > as perverted view. Perverted views at their worst are greatly to be > blamed". Anguttara Nikaya 1,17,10. Chapter XVIII Makkhali (page 29 > gradual sayings vol.I) > > The perverted views at their worst are annilhilationism (thinking there is no > rebirth depending on kamma) > Robert > .................. T: Thank you very much for introducing me this great sutta. I can see how such a thinking may lead to all kinds of action that are evil. Any irresponsible person who does not care about results of his own action (kamma vipaka) can virtually do anything. We should not forget that the belief in 'no self' implies annilhilationism as stated in the Vacchagotta sutta. "Aananda, if, when asked 'Does self exist?' I had answered 'Self exists' that would have been the belief (laddhi) of those who hold the theory of eternalness; and if, when asked 'Does self not exist?' I had answered 'Self does not exist,' that would have been the belief of those who hold the theory of annihilation. [SN 45.10] Tep === #78524 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:40 am Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) scottduncan2 Dear connie, c: "Aye, got yer joke alright. You don't think I'm a nerd, do ya? Roman characters all the way for me. Still, gotta kiss the old rosetta stone once in awhile." Scott: You remain the Reigning Queen of Nerds - Number I, while I remain your Humble Servant (pocket protector intact). Thanks for the quotes. c: "now here comes the discouraging part: p.xlix: << This is where the Abhidhamma method with its use of absolute classifications is so valuable, for it enables the student to see clearly the "whys and wherefores" of every stage and section of his practice, and to realize the essential continuity and inter-connectedness of what he is doing. >> a tid-bit of comfort food on p.liv where << here Doubt (vicikiccha) only means "absence of thinking about" (vigataa cikicchaa. VSM 471)." Scott: It adds up. Sincerely, Scott (number II). #78525 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: KenH's Thoughts on Self and No Self dcwijeratna Dear Tep, Are you referring to micchaadi.t.thi when you talk about wrong-view. If so, here is my understanding. Anything that is not sammaad.t.thi is is is micchaadi.t.thi. That is the 'greatest evil' because then their is no freedom from bondage. Noble Eightfold Path is the only path. And starts with Sammaadi.t.thi. For puthujjanas sammaadi.t.thi is the acceptance that kammas have results (kammavipaaka). And therefore the michhaadi.t.thi is the that kammas do not have results (kammas has no vipaakas). Kind regards, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #78526 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:51 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (70) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 13 13. Viisatinipaato 5. Subhaakammaaradhiitutheriigaathaava.n.nanaa verse: 354. "Paripantho esa bhayo, savighaato saka.n.tako; gedho suvisamo ceso, mahanto mohanaamukho. 352. Greed is an obstacle, full of fear, full of annoyance, full of thorns; and it is very disagreeable. It is a great cause of stupefaction. txt: Paripantho esa bhayo yadida.m kaamaa naama aviditavipulaanatthaavahattaa. Savighaato cittavighaatakarattaa. Saka.n.tako vinivijjhanattaa. Gedho suvisamo cesoti giddhihetutaaya gedho. Su.t.thu visamo mahaapalibodho so. Duratikkamana.t.thena mahanto. Mohanaamukho mucchaapattihetuto. 352. Greed is an obstacle because whatever sensual pleasures are here produce extensive misfortunes that are unknown. It is full of annoyance (sa-vighaato) because it causes the mind to be distressed (citta-vighaata-kara-ttaa). It is full of thorns because it is piercing. And greed is very disagreeable means: it is greed because it is the cause of greediness. It is very contrary, a great obstruction. It is the cause of stupefaction through being the cause of the arising of stupidity. verse: 355. "Upasaggo bhiimaruupo, kaamaa sappasiruupamaa; ye baalaa abhinandanti, andhabhuutaa puthujjanaa. 353. Sensual pleasures are like a frightful attack, like a snake's head, which fools delight in, blind ordinary individuals. txt: Upasaggo bhiimaruupoti atibhi.msanakasabhaavo, mahanto devatuupasaggo viya anatthakaadidukkhaavahanato. Sappasiruupamaa kaamaa sappa.tibhaya.t.thena. 353. A frightful (bhima-ruupo) attack (upasaggo) means: of a very fearful nature (atibhi.msanak-sabhaavo), because it brings miseries such as misfortune, etc, like a massive attack by the devataas (devatuupasaggo). Sensual pleasures are like a snake's head in the sense they are very fearful. verse: 356. "Kaamapa"nkena sattaa hi, bahuu loke aviddasuu; pariyanta.m na jaananti, jaatiyaa mara.nassa ca. 354. For people [are attached] to the mud of sensual pleasures. Many in the world are ignorant. They do not know the end of birth and death. Kaamapa"nkena sattaati kaamasa"nkhaatena pa"nkena sattaa laggaa. 354. People [are attached] to the mud of sensual pleasures (kaama-pa"nkena) means: people cling to the mud (pa"nkena) called sensual pleasures (kaama-sa"nkhaatena). verse: 357. "Duggatigamana.m magga.m, manussaa kaamahetuka.m; bahu.m ve pa.tipajjanti, attano rogamaavaha.m. 355. Because of sensual pleasures, men enter enthusiastically into the way that has several forms [and], that leads to a realm of misery, bringing disease to themselves. txt: Duggatigamana.m magganti nirayaadi-apaayagaamina.m magga.m. Kaamahetukanti kaamopabhogahetuka.m. Bahunti paa.naatipaataadibhedena bahuvidha.m. Rogamaavahanti rujjana.t.thena rogasa"nkhaatassa di.t.thadhammikaadibhedassa dukkhassa aavahanaka.m. 355. The way that leads to a realm of misery means: the way that goes to the lower realms such as the hells. Because of sensual pleasure (kaama-hetuka.m) means: because of the enjoyment of sensual pleasures (kaamopabhoga-hetuka.m). Many forms (bahu.m) means: of many kinds (bahu-vidha.m) because it consists of killing, etc. Bringing disease (roga-m-aavaha.m) means: causing (aavahanaka.m) the misery of the sort connected with this world, etc, called a disease (rago-sa"nkhaa-tassa) in the sense of hurting. verse: 358. "Eva.m amittajananaa, taapanaa sa.mkilesikaa; lokaamisaa bandhaniiyaa, kaamaa mara.nabandhanaa. 356. In this way, sensual pleasures are enemy producing, burning, defiling, the lures of the world, constraining, the bonds of death. txt: Evanti "amittaa vadhakaa"ti-aadinaa vuttappakaarena. Amittajananaati amittabhaavassa nibbattanakaa. Taapanaati santaapanakaa, tapaniiyaati attho. Sa.mkilesikaati sa.mkilesaavahaa. Lokaamisaati loke aamisabhuutaa. Bandhaniyaati bandhabhuutehi sa.myojanehi va.d.dhitabbaa, sa.myojaniyaati attho. Mara.nabandhanaati bhavaadiisu nibbattinimittataaya pavattakaara.nato ca mara.navibandhanaa. 356. In this way means: enemies, murderers, etc, as has been said. Enemy producing (amitta-jananaa) means: giving rise to the state of being an enemy (amitta-bhaavassa). Burning means: burning (santaapa-nakaa, tapaniiya). That is the meaning. Defiling (sa.mkilesikaa) means: producing defilements (sa.mkilesaavahaa). The lures of the world (lokaa-misaa) means: become the lures (aamisa-bhuutaa) in the world (loke). Constraining (bandhaniyaa) means: connected with the fetters that can be increased through the fetters that have become bonds (bandha-bhuutehi). The bonds of death (mara.na-bandhanaa) means: the fetters of death (mara.na-vibandhanaa) because they are the cause for rebirth and the cause of continuing in various existences. === to be continued, connie #78527 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (35) dcwijeratna Dear Han, Just a little tip. The quote: "yathaavaadi tathaakaari ..." form Ven. Naradas book. It is from the Loka sutta of Catukkanipaatapali, Uruvela vagga. This is how it occurs in the sutta: “Yath±v±d², bhikkhave, tath±gato tath±k±r², yath±k±r² tath±v±d². Iti yath±v±d² tath±k±r², yath±k±r² tath±v±d². Tasm± ‘tath±gato’ti vuccati. Here is the English translation from I. B. Horner: "Monks, as a Tathaagata speaks, so he does: as he does, so he speaks. That is why he is called "Tathaagata." This is the Buddha's own definition of Tathaagata. It is necessary to read the whole sutta to get the real import of it. If you have no access to it, please let me know. I'll send you the full translation by I. B. Horner (That is PTS translation) With kind regards, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #78528 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:17 am Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) scottduncan2 Dear connie, Alex, Had another couple of longish quotes myself but the text was in the car and the car was in another part of the city: Paramattha-Ma~njuussaa (Visiddhimagga A.t.thakathaa): "'On seeing a visible object with the eye': if the eye were to see the visible object, then (organs) belonging to other kinds of consciousness would see too; but that is not so. Why? Because the eye has no thought (acetanattaa). And then, were consciousness itself to see a visible object, it would see it even behind a wall because of being independent of sense resistance (appa.tighabaavato); but that is not so either because there is no seeing in all kinds of consciousness. And herein, it is consciousness dependent on the eye that sees, not just any kind. And that does not arise with respect to what is enclosed by walls, etc., where light is excluded. But where there is no exclusion of light, as in the case of a crystal or a mass of cloud, there it does arise even with respect to what is enclosed by them. So it is as a basis of consciousness that eye sees. "'When there is the impingement of door and object': What is intended is: When a visible datum as object has come into the eye's focus. 'One sees': one looks (aloketi)); for when the consciousness that has eye-sensitivity as its material support is disclosing (obhaasente) by means of a special quality of its support a visible datum as object that is assisted by light (aaloka), then it is said that a person possessed of that sees the visible datum. And here the illuminating is the revealing of the visible datum according to its individual essence, in other words, the apprehending of it experientially (paccakkhato), (Pm 40-41, Visuddhimagga I, note 14, pp. 751-752)." And: "In such passages as 'Dhammas that are concepts' (Dhs, p.1; 1308)) even a non-entity (abhaava) is thus called a 'dhamma' since it is borne (dhaariyati) and affirmed (avadhaariyati) by knowledge. That kind of dhamma is excluded by his saying 'Dhammas [means] individual essences'. The act of becoming (bhavana) which constitutes existingness (vijjamaataa) in the ultimate sense, is essence (bhaava); it is with essence (satha bhaavena), thus it is an individual essence (sabhaava); the meaning is that it is possible (labbhamaanaruupa) in the true sense, in the ultimate sense. For these are called 'dhammas (bearers)' because they bear (dhaara.na) their own individual essences (sabhaava), and they are called 'individual essences' in the sense already explained, (Pm 282, Visuddhimagga XVII, note 67, p. 789)." Sincerely, Scott. #78529 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:33 am Subject: [dsg] Re: KenH's Thoughts on Self and No Self buddhistmedi... Hi DC, - Welcome back. > DC: > Are you referring to micchaadi.t.thi when you talk about wrong-view. T: Yes. .......... > DC: If so, here is my understanding. > > Anything that is not sammaad.t.thi is is is micchaadi.t.thi. > > That is the 'greatest evil' because then their is no freedom from bondage. Noble Eightfold Path is the only path. And starts with Sammaadi.t.thi. > T: Agreed mostly. ....................... > DC: For puthujjanas sammaadi.t.thi is the acceptance that kammas have results (kammavipaaka). > And therefore the michhaadi.t.thi is the that kammas do not have results (kammas has no vipaakas). > T: Right. Thanks. Tep ==== #78530 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:05 am Subject: Re: To Nina - Thank you (with metta and respect) :-)) .. Me too ... buddhistmedi... Hi Nina (and Elaine), - I kinda like your open-mindedness in the latest conversation with Elaine (one of the wisest young Buddhists I've ever known). >N: We ordinary people cannot experience all that is in the Abhidhamma. By the way I am not a teacher, but a student. I agree with many things you write: it is experience that is important. T: By admitting that another person's understanding/knowledge also can be right, you have set a very good example for others to follow. Thanks. >Nina: When you help others, parents or friends, do you notice also that sometimes you have enthusiasm and happy feeling when doing so, and at other times there is no such happy feeling, but you know that you have to do your duty? T: I think you may also be implying that eventhough you are, sometimes, sick and tired of those who always argue and show disbelief, you've got the duty to properly respond to them. Me too. Tep ==== #78531 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:24 am Subject: Vijnanavada [Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3)] upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and Alex) - ===================================== There is more than one perspective expressed within subschools of the Vijnanavada School of Mahayana, some of which can be harmonized with Sutta teachings (it seems to me), but others of which cannot. The perspective of Vasubandhu, the erstwhile Sarvastivadin who largely created the Sarvastivadin Abhidhamma, and who later founded the Vijnanavada School of Mahayana, was not so much a mind-only perspective as a "representation-only" perspective. I believe it was pragmatically non-committal as to the existence of "external" dhammas, but maintained that direct objects of consciousness are the various *contents* of consciousness. From that perspective, if there are "external" dhammas, these"internal" object-contents of consciousness are not them but internal representations of them. A radically pragmatic, Occam's-razor-like, take on this is that inasmuch as only the internal phenomena are directly knowable, and external entities/events merely inferred, the alleged externalities may as well, for all practical purposes, be treated as nonexistent, and the internal objects of consciousness treated as the only dhammas. Instances of this perspective are that hardness sensations are the only hardnesses, there being no hardnesses arising and ceasing "out in the world," and that experienced sights are the only visible rupas, there being no sights arising and ceasing "out in the world". This is a kind of phenomena-only perspective (in the philosophical sense of 'phenomena'). It is a radical phenomenalism. There are suttas in the Sutta Pitaka, for example the Kalaka sutta and the Bahiya Sutta, that can be interpreted to support such a view and serve as its basis, though it remains up for grabs as to what the Buddha's understanding of this matter actually was - and the correctness or incorrectness of the radical-phenomenalist perspective is probably tangential anyway, I suspect, to the matter of the practice leading to the ending dukkha. Whether the direct, internal objects of consciousness are representations of "externalities" or whether these internal objects are the only conditioned dhammas, what is important is that they arise due to causes and conditions, most especially kamma, and they are distinct from (though interdependent with) the namas that are the knowings of them. A far more idealistic perspective such as put forth in the Lankavatara Sutra conceives of a kind of "mind stuff" of which objects of consciousness are made, and such a perspective tends to not distinguish knowing from known. That is a substantialist, truly mind-only, perspective that seems to go well beyond the psychologism of Vasubandhu, even approaching the idealism of Advaita Vedanta, and it seems to me to be a substantialist side-trail that is contrary to the anatta cornerstone of the Dhamma. With metta, Howard #78532 From: han tun Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (35) hantun1 Dear DC, Thank you very much for your tip. I looked at my books. I found the sutta translated into Burmese, and the Pali text in Burmese script. You are right. One has to read the entire sutta. There are four definitions of Tathaagata, and what Mahaa Thera Narada wrote was only one of them. But I do not have English translation of the sutta. Therefore, I will be most grateful if you could kindly send me the English translation of the sutta. Respectfully, Han #78533 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some well deserved questions/Further conciderations upasaka_howard Dear Bhante - I thank you for your lengthy and detailed reply. We are not very close in our perspectives, Bhante. I think we are not close enough to profitably pursue an extended discussion on this matter of "self". I will insert a couple comments below in your post, but nothing very substantive. In a message dated 11/11/2007 10:43:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, reverendaggacitto@... writes: Howard; i was discussing nothing that resides permanently as a template for physical form.The so called "occultists"are not either.This is why they refer to it as something that can be changed as a percieved form at will.As an example one may wish to refer to Dr. Robert Monroe's research and work in this field. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Actually, I have read some of his work. Also, as a child I had several OBE's. --------------------------------------------------- "Certain mind states are arising rather than others" Presumeably because they just so happened to have arisen and bumped into each other again away from where the mind was used to percieving those mind states!(oops! why hello there again! Fancy meeting YOU here again!). -------------------------------------------------- Howard: What content arises in the mind is due to multiple conditions, with kamma predominating. ----------------------------------------------- That there is no such thing as "no self" i would concur with. Nothing has essence? Merriam Websters Dictionary:essence;noun 1a The permanent as contrasted with the accidental element of being.What we are talking about is neither permanent nor accidental.C.The properties or attributes by means of which something can be placed in its proper class or identified as being what it is.2.Something that exists- entity. Have you concidered that what you deny as essence is actually a permanent state of flux? i would therefore not agree that nothing has essence. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I deny essence, and I do so as corollary to dependent origination. ---------------------------------------------- i was not speaking of "we" who walk through walls but an "it". The point is just what is "it"that is doing this? A "certain mind state" that just so happens to be arising rather than another? --------------------------------------------- Howard: Nothing "just happens". --------------------------------------------- The mind can apparently at will,transfer it's consciousness to another point in time space.You call this simply a"certain mind state"?!! -------------------------------------------- Howard: Our presuppositions here are radically different. ------------------------------------------- "An allegded soul in anything is defined as it's claimed unchanging,self existent,independant essence" Merriam Websters Dictionary:Soul;noun 2a The spiritual principle enbodied in human beings,all rational and spiritual beings or the universe.4a An active or essential part. Of all of the definitions given though,none would seem to concur with yours. Ven.Gotama rejected the two extremes of anilism and eternalism, therefore in denying both he confirms both. --------------------------------------------- Howard: No, he doesn't. ------------------------------------------- Let me give an example; under the former communist state of the Soviet Union nobody owned anything because everybody owned everything!There is no anilism or eternalism because there is both.Please allow me to further explain;we are talking about phenomena that is arising,existing, and ceasing to exist.It is the on going eternal process of existence and the on going anilation of that existence at one and the same time.This is why Ven.Gotama denied one or the other. i believe i understand the dhamma of "no self" just fine. No Angels?Please refer to the Dhp.Ch.26 verse#420 for a further look on this matter.Some would translate it as gandhabba, however as a gandhabba is discussed as a condition for REBIRTH in M.N.sutta #38 that interpretation would clearly be in error as regards the context of Dhp.CH.26 verse#420.This is why the the translation is usually "angels". Your Mahayana Diamond suttra quotation does not impress me. i sincerely believe that it is a twisted distortion of Ven.Gotama's dhamma.RE;life as "a phantom and a dream". Why should we concern ourselves with a moral life and it's positive kammic consequences and an immoral life and the negitive kammic consequences in this life as well as after any "relinking of consciousness"if were after all only talking of a "bubble and a flash" only a "phantom and a dream"? i believe that this is an esotericly disguised form of nilistic "Buddha Dhamma" and is not only a gross distortion of Ven. Gotama's teaching but an insult to the spiritual endevors of humanity humanity as well, having been put forth for something more than a "bubble and a flash". --------------------------------------------------- Howard: We disagree on this. -------------------------------------------------- i sincerely appreciate your contributions put forth and your time spent discussing this matter.Please do not take anything as an offence with the intention to disturb any ones peace of mind. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I certainly do not take any offense, Sir, and I hope that likewise you do not either. ---------------------------------------------- i simply believe that these matters deserve to be treated honestly and that hopefully we all have the spiritual maturity to do so. Once again, thank you for your time and efforts on my behalf as well as for your time graciously spent for the benefit of others. May the Buddha's, Deva,and Angel's bless ALL of you! bhikkhu aggacitto/aka reverend aggacitto ========================= With metta, Howard #78534 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: To Nina - Thank you (with metta and respect) :-)) .. Me too ... nilovg Hi Tep, thanks for your kind post. Op 12-nov-2007, om 15:05 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > I think you may also be implying that eventhough you are, > sometimes, sick and tired of those who always argue and show > disbelief, you've got the duty to properly respond to them. Me too. ------ N: No, I do not get sick and tired, and I do not mind it when others do not agree. This is a forum with many kinds of people with different ideas and that is a good thing. Nina. #78535 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:16 am Subject: to Nina, thank you. nilovg Dear Elaine, ------- E: Thank you soo much for your e-m. I was worried the whole night thinking about it and didn't sleep very well but I feel better now after reading your reply. :-)) ------ N: I hope you will not worry again. It is a good thing when people do not agree and explain their point of view. You email was gentle and mild, and even when people speak sharply, there is nothing wrong. I hope nobody worries about what they write to me. ------- Nina: When you help others, parents or friends, do you notice also that sometimes you have enthusiasm and happy feeling when doing so, and at other times there is no such happy feeling, but you know that you have to do your duty? ---- Elaine: When my help is appreciated I'll feel happy about it. But when it is not appreciated, but if I really love that person, I'd still help even if I'm not happy. How about you, do you feel that way too? :-)) ------ N: Sometimes it was hard helping my late father, he had criticism. But he was my father and we would still help. It depends on many conditions whether kusala citta is accompanied by happy feeling or by indifferent feeling, but we may know the difference. Here we are already in the middle of Abhidhamma. I asked you this question to show that the Abhidhamma is not only for arahats, also ordinary people can profit by it. The Abhidhamma classifies kusala citta by way of feeling: it can be accompanied by happy feeling or by indifferent feeling. When feeling is not happy, and not unhappy, there is still feeling and this is indifferent or neutral feeling. There is more to say about helping. We may help or give because we understand that this is kusala and kusala is beneficial. If the receiver does not react favorably, this does not alter the kusala we perform. In between kusala cittas we may also have disappointment and that is akusala. Or, we may feel bodily tiredness and this causes also aversion in between kusala cittas. So we see that kusala cittas and akusala cittas alternate all the time. We cannot help this, it shows that kusala and akusala are anattaa. I have another question if you like to answer this: when we like something and are attached to it, we may sometimes have happy feeling. Sometimes it may happen that we like something but are not carried away and do not have happy feeling. We may like a comfortable chair, but we like it mildly, with indifferent feeling. Do you notice a difference? Nina. #78536 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Q. re Conditions, Ch 17, 3. the Khandhas. nilovg Hi Tep, Op 11-nov-2007, om 17:51 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > > >N: What I want to demonstrate is: that the subject of present, past, > future is complex. There is much more to it than one my think. I want > to be careful with the word concept. > > Tep: I am thankful for your effort to treat the term 'concept' with > care. It has been loosely defined for too long. > You summarized the "four aspects according to which ruupa can be seen > as past, future and present", according to extent, continuity, period > and moment. But you have not yet related these four aspects of ruupa > back to 'concept', and so I feel I am left hanging in the air right > now. Help! I want to get back to the ground. ---------- N: I wrote post to Howard on this subject, namely it is about the nimitta, sign or shadow of a reality that has just fallen away and that can be an object of sati and pa~n~naa. This subject is difficult. What has just fallen away is not a concept in the sense of table or chair. You will agree that a table is not object of sati and pa~n~naa. I wrote to Howard: ----------- > > >N: N: the first three are sapariyaaya (figurative) and the last one > is nippariyaaya (literal). The last one is in the ultimate sense only. > > T: Okay. Do you imply that anything that is not "literal", it is a > concept? BTW what does literal mean here? > ........... > N: As to moment, khana, this is very precisely the three submoments > of citta; its arising moment, the moment of its presence and the > moment of its fallen away. Also ruupa has these, but it lasts longer. > [Tep: Point 2. Past and future khandhas have the three > characteristics as the present ones, and as such they can be used as > the objects of 'satipatthana bhavana' as seen in DN 22 (for example, > a corpse)] > > >N: The fact that they have the three general characterisics shows > that they are dhammas, not concepts. Concepts do not have these > characteristics. > > T: Do you mean I should define concepts as 'things that do not have > the characteristics'? Or, should concepts be defined as things that > are non-literal? [In a dictionary, literal means 'exact, not > figurative, not metaphorical'.] > ........ > > >N: A table does not have the three characteristics, it is not a > reality. -------- > > T: Do you think a corpse is an ultimate reality? I cited a 'corpse' > as an example of external objects (like a table, mountain, car, etc.) > that are not ultimate realities, yet the Buddha recommended using a > corpse for contemplation purposes. Why? To me the corpse is clearly a > concept, not a paramattha dhamma that rises and falls quickly. It > deforms slowly and will finally degenerate and be gone. The various > states of a corpse, from the beginning when it is still fresh, to > rottening states, to a skeleton, and finally to pieces of > disconnected bones, vividly demonstrate the three characteristics (ti- > lakkhana). The meditator benefits by comparing his/her body to the > corpse and comes to the realization of aniccam, dukkham, anatta in > his/her beloved body. > ......... > N: Yes, the corpse reminds us of the truth of impermanence. But the > three characteristics pertain to momentary realities, to naamas and > ruupas. > > >T: In the above quote the Buddha taught that a body/khandha in the > past and in the future should not be grasped with clinging. It is an > example of how concepts are used for satipatthana development. ------- N: Not only corpses, but many things in life remind us of the truth. It is not so that we should tell ourselves; now I use a corpse so that I have mindfulness of naama and ruupa. It all depends on the citta of an individual at a particular moment. -------- > > >N: Yes, when the suttanta method us used, concepts are mentioned, but > they point to the anattaness of nama and rupa. > > T: Do they just "point to" anata-ness but they should never be used > as objects for contemplation of anatta (anattanupassana)? > ......... > N: I like to avoid the idea of using. It seems that 'I' am doing > something, and that 'I' contemplate anattaa. I do not find this > helpful. The attaa seems so strong here. When naama appears such as hearing, there is no other reality. It can be realized as only a dhamma that is conditioned. It could not arise without earsense and sound. To me this is a beginning. I am not so much thinking of contemplation of anatta. It will come when the conditions are right. -------- > > >N: In another sutta (an Auspicious Night, M.) the Buddha taught us > not to hanker after what is past or long for what has not come yet. > Just be aware of the present moment. This is how I take what is said > of not clinging to past and future khandhas. Seeing is khandha, > vi~n`naa.nakhandha. It is very real, I cannot think of it as a > concept. > > T: With all due respect, Nina, but I think concept is not the issue > here. We are aware of the present moment as the ONLY moment we have > now to develop sila, samadhi, panna (the eightfold path, or the four > foundations of mindfulness). When one is heedful (atapi, sampajanno, > satima) in the present moment that is wholesome, soon when it turns > into past that moment will also be wholesome. One does not have to > worry about the future, since soon it will automatically become > present. Therefore, focusing on the present moment is very wise > practice. ------- N: I agree that sati and pa~n~naa have a present object. I do not see it as focussing, that seems again with an idea of 'I do'. I feel that it is best to emphasize understanding: how will there be more understanding of what presents itself now? No worry about: do I have sati or not, how should I contemplate, because that is an idea of self again. Nina. #78537 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 8:32 am Subject: Vijnanavada [Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3)] truth_aerator Dear Howard & Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Scott: This amounts, in my opinion, to a treatise on the tenets of the Mind-Only school of Mahayana Buddhism. This is fine, but I think, since you seem so convinced, perhaps we should stop for now. Thanks for the discussion. >>>>>>>> I base these tenets ONLY if they are in harmony with Sutta (not Sutra) Pitaka. > > http://www.buddhismtoday.com/english/philosophy/maha/004-mind.htm > Thanks for the link. > > > ===================================== > I believe it was pragmatically non-committal as to the > existence of "external" dhammas, >>> This is important and the point I was trying to make. >>>>>> Whether the direct, internal objects of consciousness are > representations of "externalities" or whether these internal objects are the > only conditioned dhammas, what is important is that they arise due to causes and conditions, most especially kamma, and they are distinct from (though interdependent with) the namas that are the knowings of them. >>>>>> I hope that we all can agree on Anicca, dukha, anatta of ALL dhammas. I hope we can ALL agree that ALL dhammas should NOT be clung to (in proper time everything has to let go - see parable of a raft). I hope that we can agree on: "in the seen let there be just what is seen... in the heard, sensed, cognized..." I hope we can all agree on that. Lots of Metta, Alex #78538 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 8:47 am Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) truth_aerator Dear Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear connie, Alex, > > > "'On seeing a visible object with the eye': if the eye were to see the > visible object, then (organs) belonging to other kinds of > consciousness would see too; >>> Incorrect. Eye consciousness and lets say tactile consciousness ARE different types of consciousness. One does not go into the range of another. >>>>> > eye has no thought (acetanattaa). And then, were consciousness itself to see a visible object, it would see it even behind a wall because of > being independent of sense resistance (appa.tighabaavato); >>>>>>>> Easy to disprove. In the dreams you may not see what is behind walls or other objects... In dreams there can be rational flow of time... So space/time critique doesn't work. >>> > "'When there is the impingement of door and object': >>>>> Thats a perception not something outside of it. Lots of Metta, Alex #78539 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:11 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (35) buddhistmedi... Hi friends DC and Han, - I am not sure I undersatnd the English translation below (by I. B. Horner). > DC: > Here is the English translation from I. B. Horner: "Monks, as a Tathaagata speaks, so he does: as he does, so he speaks. That is why he is called "Tathaagata." > T: Can you translate the (bad) English into (better) English for me, please? Thanks. Tep ==== #78540 From: Dieter Möller Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: KenH's Thoughts on Self and No Self # 34782 moellerdieter Hi Ken H, Tep , Howard ..others, you wrote in your message 34782 to Howard : (H:I understand your concern, but I think it is incorrect to characterize the venerable's position (as given in detail on Access to Insight at the url: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/notself.html ) as "There clearly is a self, and it would be ridiculous to say otherwise. However, thoughts of self (and of not-self) agitate the mind and an agitated mind is not free." >) --------------------------- KH: Until recently, I would have agreed that was an incorrect characterisation. I thought Thanissaro Buikkhu's (TB's) choice of words was often unfortunate, but I always assumed the meaning behind his words was consistent with the Dhamma. But now I am convinced the reverse is true. A closer look at ATI indicates overwhelmingly the venerable does believe in a self but considers it is wrong to discuss that belief. The article you have cited begins: snip D: to be fair one needs to read the article in detail which I haven't done yet..and then probably the consequent mail exchanges too, Sarah mentioned. Maybe I will do when I have time ..but for our communication now it seems to me more benefitial to follow Tep's proposed topic and comment to some of the points you made (as a friendly feedback not the armwrestling Tep assumes...;-) ) 'KH: Do you see what I mean? I think you would agree with me that the words "doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings" were, at best, badly chosen. We would hope TB would go on to explain that anatta DOES fit well with "kamma and rebirth" and with all the other Buddhist teachings. But he doesn't. And the reason he doesn't is he believes there is a self that acts and receives the results of actions and there is a self that dies and is reborn. D: considering long lasting disputes about the anatta doctrine , there is indeed a stumbling block. How would you explain that Kamma/rebirth and Anatta 'fit well' ? Somestimes I have the impression that 'Abdhammicas' like students starting to learn arithmatics by calculus. your conclusion of 'he believes there is a self that acts and receives the results of actions and there is a self that dies and is reborn' is - based on the above - seems to me far fetched . KH: I would have thought the whole of the Pali Canon addresses the question, `How there can be existence (paramattha dhamma) without self,' but that's just my opinion.) D: the whole canon addresses the purpose of a spiritual life (4.N.T.), you equate existence with paramattha dhamma but nibbana is not part of the khandas which describe existence, is it? KH: TB: "In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer.----------------- TB has a point, of course: In the suttas, the Buddha tends not to address the question point-blank. But what is the true significance of that? D: to avoid trouble within , one better addresses it indirectly .. as until the delusion of I/self is finally abolished ( totally only at Arahat level liberated from the fetter of conceit) it is our mundane reality.. KH: TB: "When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible.----------------- KH: Is that strictly correct? In that particular instance, didn't the Buddha explain that the questioner was not capable of hearing the answer without falling into despair? (Sorry for my usual inability to give references.) I think the point is; anatta is a characteristic of dhammas and, therefore, it is accurate to say, "dhammas are not self" in preference to, "there is no self." D: yes the questioner was not capable ... but those capable , i.e. who had given up the belief in the self , wouldn't have asked in the first place, would they? To see the delusion of that I am , that is mine, that is my Self ..one needs insight work.. KH: TB: "Thus the question should be put aside. ----------------- Does that ring a bell with you? I seem to remember how you, like many of us here, have been driven almost to distraction trying to convince one of our members that, spoken or unspoken, there is no room for the conclusion, "there is a self." The reasoning we use is; if there are only dhammas and all dhammas are not self, then it undeniably follows that there is no self. But those words fall on deaf ears. And the reason for that can be traced back to ATI and the writings of Venerable Thanissaro. D: without 'insight work ' (the 3fold path training) those words may fall indeed on deaf ears or best taken over as hearsay ... to trace that back to the Venerable seems to me overestimating his influence.. KHKH: Does this leave any doubt in the reader's mind? TB sees anatta as a `raft' in the sense of an `expediency' (a temporary shutting- out of the truth). As for his description of parinibbana, you might say "free to go where one likes, in a way that cannot be traced" is just an unfortunate choice of words. But no, TB repeatedly describes Nibbana in that eternalist way. D: quoting from MN 22 (extract ,transl. TB) 'Monks, I will teach you the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded to the Blessed One. The Blessed One said: "Suppose a man were traveling along a path. He would see a great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. The thought would occur to him, 'Here is this great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. What if I were to gather grass, twigs, branches, & leaves and, having bound them together to make a raft, were to cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with my hands & feet?' Then the man, having gathered grass, twigs, branches, & leaves, having bound them together to make a raft, would cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with his hands & feet. 7 Having crossed over to the further shore, he might think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having hoisted it on my head or carrying on my back, go wherever I like?' What do you think, monks: Would the man, in doing that, be doing what should be done with the raft?" "No, lord." "And what should the man do in order to be doing what should be done with the raft? There is the case where the man, having crossed over, would think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having dragged it on dry land or sinking it in the water, go wherever I like?' In doing this, he would be doing what should be done with the raft. In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas." I think when you re- read you may recognise as well the difference of nibbana and pari-nibbana with Metta Dieter #78541 From: mlnease Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 11:26 am Subject: Re: sound. [dsg] Realities and Concepts (1) m_nease Hi DC, DC Wijeratna wrote: Nettippakara.na is really a part of Khuddhaka Nikaaya according to Theravaada classification. It is therefore not part of Abhidhamma Pi.taka. Nor the A.t.thakatha. Thanks for pointing this out and for your many other clarifications. mike #78542 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 11:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (35) nilovg Hi Tep, we could 'acts' substitute for does.'As he acts so he speaks". His actions are completely in conformity with his words. Some people say that they will do something, but they do not act accordingly. This is not truthful. Nina. Op 12-nov-2007, om 18:11 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > DC: > > Here is the English translation from I. B. Horner: "Monks, as a > Tathaagata speaks, so he does: as he does, so he speaks. That is why > he is called "Tathaagata." > > > > T: Can you translate the (bad) English into (better) English for > me, please? #78544 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:12 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: KenH's Thoughts on Self and No Self # 34782 buddhistmedi... Hi Dieter (KenH), - Incredible, incredible, Dieter, the way you used only few words to adequately answer some of the difficult Dhamma questions. > D: the whole canon addresses the purpose of a spiritual life (4.N.T.), you equate existence with paramattha dhamma but nibbana is not part of the khandas which describe existence, is it? > > > D: to avoid trouble within , one better addresses it indirectly .. as until the delusion of I/self is finally abolished ( totally only at Arahat level liberated from the fetter of conceit) it is our mundane reality.. > > > D: yes the questioner was not capable ... but those capable , i.e. who had given up the belief in the self , wouldn't have asked in the first place, would they? > > > D: I think when you re- read [MN 22 ] you may recognise as well the difference of nibbana and pari-nibbana. > Thanks. Tep ==== #78545 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:18 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (35) buddhistmedi... Hi Nina, - Thank you very much. The alternate "translation" you gave is very much compatible with the Thai version of the same sutta. > N: > Hi Tep, > we could 'acts' substitute for does.'As he acts so he speaks". > His actions are completely in conformity with his words. > Some people say that they will do something, but they do not act > accordingly. This is not truthful. > Nina. > Op 12-nov-2007, om 18:11 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > > > DC: > > > Here is the English translation from I. B. Horner: "Monks, as a > > Tathaagata speaks, so he does: as he does, so he speaks. That is why > > he is called "Tathaagata." > > > > > > > T: Can you translate the (bad) English into (better) English for > > me, please? > ................... I appreciate it. Tep ==== #78546 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:49 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] KenH's Thoughts on Self and No Self dacostacharles Hi all, I have to restate this quote: ".the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?" I would like to add: A warrior can follow two roads. One is the road of the Self-Centered, were self-indulgence dominates. The other is the road of the Selfless, were self-sacrifice dominates. In each, a foe must be subdued. Those on the path of the self-centered are driven by our most primordial instincts, for example, the need to dominate others. It is impossible to find peace on this road, because there will always be something or someone else to try and dominate. Those on the path of the selfless are driven a commitment to humanity. They strive to give freely of themselves, this takes special people, special training. It is a path where peace and harmony are the objectives. This is the sacred path of the warrior; here the real foe is within, and suffering is its name. The Journey Must Start Within. Develop in the mind a sacred space, where you embrace the self, and on the altar of your burning heart you sacrifice it -- in the hopes that we all slay the foe within. Discipline your mind to refrain from evil and cultivate virtue Charles DaCosta _____ #78547 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 2:42 pm Subject: Re: KenH's Thoughts on Self and No Self # 34782 kenhowardau Hi Dieter, Tep and Rob K, Tep asked for a quote supporting my claim that wrong view was the greatest of all evils. Thank you, Robert, for helping out (yet again). That was something I had come to regard as obvious! ---------------------- <. . .> KH (in old post): > > A closer look at ATI indicates overwhelmingly the venerable does believe in a self but considers it is wrong to discuss that belief. The article you have cited begins: snip > > D: > to be fair one needs to read the article in detail which I haven't done yet..and then probably the consequent mail exchanges too, Sarah mentioned.Maybe I will do when I have time ..but for our communication now it seems to me more benefitial to follow Tep's proposed topic and comment to some of the points you made (as a friendly feedback not the armwrestling Tep assumes...;-) ) --------------------- :-) This is a touchy subject with me at the moment. In recent weeks DSG has seen quite a lot of communication-spoiling. Scott has called it 'contrariness.' At it's worst it becomes what Phil calls 'dojo busting.' It seems that - for whatever reason - some people want to thwart any meaningful discussion of the Abhidhamma. When I say it is a touchy subject I just mean I am feeling a bit sick of it at the moment. Given time I will be back to arm wrestling with the best of 'em. :-) ---------------------------------- > > 'KH: Do you see what I mean? I think you would agree with me that the words "doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings" were, at best, badly chosen. We would hope TB would go on to explain that anatta DOES fit well with "kamma and rebirth" and with all the other Buddhist teachings. But he doesn't. And the reason he doesn't is he believes there is a self that acts and receives the results of actions and there is a self that dies and is reborn. > > > D: considering long lasting disputes about the anatta doctrine , there is indeed a stumbling block. How would you explain that Kamma/rebirth and Anatta 'fit well' ? ------------------------------------ As I said on Sunday I don't have much computer time at the moment. (I shouldn't be here now.) And so, maybe I won't give one of my usual, long-winded replies to this question. In any case, it would be good to know first whether *you* saw a difficulty in reconciling anatta with the laws of kamma and vipaka. That might save a lot of unnecessary detail in my answer. ------------------------------ D: > Sometimes I have the impression that 'Abdhammicas' like students starting to learn arithmatics by calculus. ------------------------------ To me it is the opposite. I see the suttas as the really difficult (calculus) part of the course and the Abhidhamma as the gentle introduction. I think the ideal introduction to Buddhism is via the Abhidhamma. Otherwise, a lot of religious people commit themselves to Buddhism before knowing what it really teaches. When they find out later that [according to the Abhidhamma and the ancient commentaries] the suttas do not contain the escapist nonsense they assumed them to contain, they refuse to accept it. They can't turn back because they are too committed to calling themselves Buddhists. Some of them are even wearing yellow robes! And so I think a lot of people rewrite, or misrepresent, the original Dhamma in the full knowledge of what they are doing. They don't like the way the Dhamma is found in the ancient texts, and so they convert it into the kind of religious mumbo-jumbo they always wanted it to be. ----------------------- D: > your conclusion of 'he believes there is a self that acts and receives the results of actions and there is a self that dies and is reborn' is - based on the above - seems to me far fetched . ------------------------ I wonder how far Ven Thanissaro will have to go before people get his message. How much more plainly can he put it? He does not believe there is no self. He believes in a self just as much as Christians and materialist-atheists do! He thinks all this talk about no-self is a big mistake that has stemmed from a mere "strategy" the Buddha (supposedly) devised as an aid to meditation. -------------------------------- > > KH: I would have thought the whole of the Pali Canon addresses the question, `How there can be existence (paramattha dhamma) without self,' but that's just my opinion.) > > > D: the whole canon addresses the purpose of a spiritual life (4.N.T.), you equate existence with paramattha dhamma but nibbana is not part of the khandas which describe existence, is it? --------------------------------- I agree nibanna is beyond the five khandhas. The way to realise nibbana is to know the five khandhas as they really are. But maybe I am missing your point. (?) I'll get back to the rest of your post tomorrow. Ken H #78548 From: han tun Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] to Han.Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (7) hantun1 Dear Nina, > > Nina: I think a debate like that is difficult. There are so many texts on feelings and many aspects are shown in different texts. Such as understanding dukkha by means of three feelings. We cannot apply one text for all situations. An argument between you and the rest? I would not take this so seriously, but I think you do not take this seriously. 'Just telling stories'? I would take this as a reminder that indeed we are mostly thinking of the others, the situation, instead of knowing ourselves, the cittas that arise. > Han: I do not wish to continue this particular point. Please just remember that I respect you. Respectfully, Han -------------------- Han: I apologize for cutting short this conversation without giving any reason. I thought if I argue I might be showing disrespect to you, whom I admire. Now I realize that it is not correct. I just read what you wrote to Elaine: “It is a good thing when people do not agree and explain their point of view.” So I will explain my point of view, which may be very petty to you, though. I know that there are many suttas for any given subject. But some people like some suttas better than others. I like MN 148 Chachakka Sutta very much, and I consider the Buddha’s teachings how to handle the three kinds of feelings very good. Therefore, when you said, “There are so many texts on feelings and many aspects are shown in different texts. Such as understanding dukkha by means of three feelings. We cannot apply one text for all situations.” I was not very happy. Why can I not apply one text for all situations if that text is good? For example, I am applying Anattalakkhana sutta for all situations of anatta. I am applying Dhamma-cakkappavattana sutta for all situations of Four Noble Truths and Noble Eightfold Path. I am applying Mahaasatipatthaana sutta for all situations of satipatthaana. Now, if I had given that reason that time, you might come up with why a particular sutta cannot be applied for all situations giving your own reasons. Then, I will argue back, and there might be unpleasantness which might spoil the profitable and comfortable atmosphere which we have established between us. That’s why I cut short my conversation. Anyhow, now that you know the reason, please forgive me. Respectfully, Han #78549 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:19 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Anatta of "Self" and the World dacostacharles Dear Alex and bhikkhu aggacitto Reverend aggacitto, I agree with what you said, as follows: "The only problem that exists with this is that therefore life become's one big solipstic dream where no one can be really sure of anything! However, let's remember that in order for one's "self" to be an illusion (delusion) there STILL has to be the "self" available to perceive the "illusion" or "deluded" state !" If there is no-such-thing-as 'Self' then what is surviving the rounds of samsara. I "believe" the Buddha taught a balance view, one that clearly defined the Self and the limits to its usefulness. The important point is that - the path to nirvana begins with self-less-ness. The path to self-less-ness begins with a healthy ego (i.e., self). An ego freed from the debilitating effects of attachments, and freed from the dominating effects of the poisons and taints. Charles DaCosta _____ #78550 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:41 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] A changing self? Identity vs. Individuality dacostacharles I have to say that I disagree with you: We have a 'self' that is changing because: 1. We know that it doesn't remain the same overtime! 2. We have very little power over it. 3. We are made of unstable components. 4. It is dependent on other things. 5. We are individuals. 6. Our desires change. 7. We grow attached to things 8. We suffer. 9. We grow old, get sick, and will die. By definition, a cluster or process can't become attached to something unless you glue them together! Just because an entity has components, changes, and is out of control doesn't mean it is not real. Charles DaCosta _____ #78551 From: Elaine Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] to Nina, thank you. shennieca Hi Nina, Thank you for telling us a little bit about your family. Nina: Here we are already in the middle of Abhidhamma. I asked you this question to show that the Abhidhamma is not only for arahats, also ordinary people can profit by it. Elaine: I think ordinary people can profit a little bit from reading the Abhidhamma. I’d like to tell a story. My mother-in-law (who is in her sixties) takes care of her mother (who is in her late eighties). One day, grandma became very, very ill and all of us thought she wasn’t going to make it, but thank goodness she managed to pull through. When grandma was ill, everyone in the family was worried and distraught. My MIL, who is a christian came to me and asked, ‘What do Buddhists think of death?’ A few days before, I had read a bit of Abhidhamma book and I confidently replied to her, ‘Oh, Buddhists are not afraid of death!’ :D She was of course, surprised, and she asked, ‘Oh, why is that so?’ I told her that Buddhists believe, we sort-of-like ‘live and die’ every moment in our lives. The moment that has passed is already gone, as if we have already died. Buddhists also believe in rebirth and we always have a chance to live again (not that birth is a good thing, but at least there is no eternal hell). Then I went on to tell her about how Cuti-citta (death-consciousness) becomes Patisandhi-citta (rebirth-consciousness) and etc. etc. I made it sound ‘technical’ so death would not sound too scary for her ((rolleyes)). I don’t understand all these cittas myself, but I told her all the things that I’ve read. She didn’t understand these cittas either but at least she got the Buddhist perspective of it. :-)) So, that day I did find some usefulness of the Abhidhamma. I don’t know if my MIL believes in me because later on she told me about St. Peter and some kind of gate. Oh well~ So, yes I think Abhidhmma is knowledge is good. It is good for explanation purposes. --------------- Nina: I have another question if you like to answer this: when we like something and are attached to it, we may sometimes have happy feeling. Sometimes it may happen that we like something but are not carried away and do not have happy feeling. We may like a comfortable chair, but we like it mildly, with indifferent feeling. Do you notice a difference? Elaine: Yes, I notice the difference. Is it because of the conditions of: contact (phassa) -> feelings vedana (greed tanha) -> clinging (upadana)? Or is it because perceptions gives rise to different feelings e.g. sukha, dukha, somanassa, domanassa, upekkha? I think these perceptions are due to past Kamma (according to DO). Is that right? #78552 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 11:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta of "Self" and the World upasaka_howard Hi, Charles (and Alex & Bhante) - In a message dated 11/12/2007 6:24:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, dacostas@... writes: Dear Alex and bhikkhu aggacitto Reverend aggacitto, I agree with what you said, as follows: "The only problem that exists with this is that therefore life become's one big solipstic dream where no one can be really sure of anything! However, let's remember that in order for one's "self" to be an illusion (delusion) there STILL has to be the "self" available to perceive the "illusion" or "deluded" state !" If there is no-such-thing-as 'Self' then what is surviving the rounds of samsara. I "believe" the Buddha taught a balance view, one that clearly defined the Self and the limits to its usefulness. The important point is that - the path to nirvana begins with self-less-ness. The path to self-less-ness begins with a healthy ego (i.e., self). An ego freed from the debilitating effects of attachments, and freed from the dominating effects of the poisons and taints. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: IMO, what Bhikkhu Aggacitto said in the material you quote above and what you then add are both in error. With regard to what Bhante said: No self is needed to be aware of an illusion or a deluded state or anything else. Knowing is an event, and it does not require a knower. When it is raining, Charles, there need not be a "rainer". When it is snowing, there need not be a "snower". As for what you said: Nothing survives the rounds of samsara, nothing passes on from lifetime to lifetime. To think that something passes over is Sati's error, an error explicitly pointed out by the Buddha. The idea of a self or ego, a "soul", that transmigrates and eventually becomes freed of defilements and attachments is not what the Buddha taught. That is Brahmanism. --------------------------------------------------- Charles DaCosta =========================== With metta, Howard #78553 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:51 pm Subject: Vijnanavada [Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3)] scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Thank you very much for: H: "There is more than one perspective expressed within subschools of the Vijnanavada School of Mahayana, some of which can be harmonized with Sutta teachings (it seems to me)..." Scott: What an erudite summary. Very nice. I dug it. Sincerely, Scott. #78554 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 11:54 am Subject: Re: Vijnanavada [Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3)] upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - ================================ Thank you very much for those kind words, Scott. I know that your perspective is far from anything discussed in my post, and I appreciate your comments all the more because of that. Really nice of you, my friend. :-) With metta, Howard #78555 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:06 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,203 Vism.XVII,204 Vism.XVII,205 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII [(v) The Sixfold Base] 203. As to the clause 'With mentality-materiality as condition, the sixfold base': Three aggregates are 'mind'; the basis, Primaries, and the rest are 'matter': And while all that conditions this A part can represent the rest. 204. In the case of the mentality-materiality that is here a condition for the sixfold base, mentality is the three aggregates beginning with feeling, while materiality should be understood as that included in one's own continuity stated thus 'primaries and the rest are "matter" ', that is to say, the four primaries, six physical bases, and life faculty, [since they are conditioning factors] invariably. But this mentality and this materiality and this mentality-materiality, each one representing the rest as 'mentality-materiality', should be understood as a condition for the sixfold base consisting of the sixth base and the sixfold base each one representing the rest as the 'sixfold base'. Why? Because in the immaterial becoming there is only mentality as a condition, and that is a condition only for the sixth base, [namely, the mind base,] not for any other. For it is said in the Vibha"nga, 'With mentality as condition, the sixth base' (Vbh. 179). 205. Here it may be asked: 'But how is it to be known that mentality-materiality is a condition for the sixfold base?'. Because the latter exists when mentality-materiality exists. For a given base exists when a given kind of mentality-materiality exists, not otherwise. But the way in which the one comes to exist when the other does will be explained below in the section dealing with how it is a condition. Therefore: A wise man should contrive to tell Which one conditions which, and how, At rebirth and in life as well; [The explanation follows now.] *********************** naamaruupapaccayaasa.laayatanapadavitthaarakathaa 203. naamaruupapaccayaa sa.laayatanapade -- naama.m khandhattaya.m ruupa.m, bhuutavatthaadika.m mata.m. katekasesa.m ta.m tassa, taadisasseva paccayo.. 204. ya~nheta.m sa.laayatanasseva paccayabhuuta.m naamaruupa.m, tattha naamanti vedanaadikkhandhattaya.m, ruupa.m pana sasantatipariyaapanna.m niyamato cattaari bhuutaani cha vatthuuni jiivitindriyanti eva.m bhuutavatthaadika.m matanti veditabba.m. ta.m pana naama~nca ruupa~nca naamaruupa~nca naamaruupanti eva.m katekasesa.m cha.t.thaayatana~nca sa.laayatana~nca sa.laayatananti eva.m katekasesasseva sa.laayatanassa paccayoti veditabba.m. kasmaa? yasmaa aaruppe naamameva paccayo, ta~nca cha.t.thaayatanasseva na a~n~nassa. ``naamapaccayaa cha.t.thaayatana''nti (vibha0 322) hi vibha"nge vutta.m. 205. tattha siyaa -- katha.m paneta.m jaanitabba.m ``naamaruupa.m sa.laayatanassa paccayo''ti. naamaruupabhaave bhaavato. tassa tassa hi naamassa ruupassa ca bhaave ta.m ta.m aayatana.m hoti, na a~n~nathaa. saa panassa tabbhaavabhaavitaa paccayanayasmi.m yeva aavibhavissati. tasmaa, pa.tisandhiyaa pavatte vaa, hoti ya.m yassa paccayo. yathaa ca paccayo hoti, tathaa neyya.m vibhaavinaa.. #78556 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:13 pm Subject: Vijnanavada [Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3)] truth_aerator Dear Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > Scott: What an erudite summary. Very nice. I dug it. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > Good links: --- What is/isn't Yogacara Yogācāra is not Metaphysical Idealism The school was called Yogācāra (Yoga practice) because it provided a comprehensive, therapeutic framework for engaging in the practices that lead to the goal of the bodhisattva path, namely enlightened cognition. Meditation served as the laboratory in which one could study how the mind operated. Yogācāra focused on the question of consciousness from a variety of approaches, including meditation, psychological analysis, epistemology (how we know what we know, how perception operates, what validates knowledge), scholastic categorization, and karmic analysis. Yogācāra doctrine is summarized in the term vijñapti-mātra, "nothing- but-cognition" (often rendered "consciousness-only" or "mind-only") which has sometimes been interpreted as indicating a type of metaphysical idealism, i.e., the claim that mind alone is real and that everything else is created by mind. However, the Yogācārin writings themselves argue something very different. Consciousness (vijñāna) is not the ultimate reality or solution, but rather the root problem. This problem emerges in ordinary mental operations, and it can only be solved by bringing those operations to an end. Yogācāra tends to be misinterpreted as a form of metaphysical idealism primarily because its teachings are taken for ontological propositions rather than as epistemological warnings about karmic problems. The Yogācāra focus on cognition and consciousness grew out of its analysis of karma, and not for the sake of metaphysical speculation. Two things should be clarified in order to explain why Yogācāra is not metaphysical idealism: 1. The meaning of the word "idealism"; and 2. an important difference between the way Indian and Western philosophers do philosophy. http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/articles/intro-uni.htm While I disagree with some things (mahayana additions), there is a lot good things there. --- Alaya Vijnana in Pali Canon It is generally believed that alaya Vijnana is purely a Mahayana doctrine and that nothing about it is found in H***yana. But in the Mahayanasangraha, Asanga himself says that in the Sravaka-yana (equals H***yana) it is mentioned by synonyms (paryaya) and refers to a passage in the Ekottaragama which reads: 'People (praja) like the alaya (alayarata), are fond of the alaya (alayarama), are delighted in the alaya (alayasammudita), are attached to the alaya (alayabhirata). When the Dharma is preached for the destruction of the alaya, they wish to listen (susrusanti) and lend their ears (srotram avadadhanti), they put forth a will for the perfect knowledge (ajnacittam upasthapayanti) and follow the path of Truth (dharmanudharma-pratipanna). When the Tathagata appears in the world (pradurbhava), this marvelous (ascarya) and extraordinary (adbhuta) Dharma appears in the world.' Lamotte identifies this Ekottaragama passage with the following passage in the Pali Anguttaranikaya (A II, p.131): Alayarama bhikkhave paja alayarata alayasammudita, sa Tathagatena analaye dhamme desiyamane sussuyati sotam odahati annacittam upattapeti. Tathagatassa bhikkhave arahato sammasambuddhassa patubhava ayam pathamo acchariyo abbhuto dhammo patubhavati. http://www.buddhistinformation.com/alaya_vijnana.htm ------- Lots of Metta, Alex #78557 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:22 pm Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) scottduncan2 "'On seeing a visible object with the eye': if the eye were to see the visible object, then (organs) belonging to other kinds of consciousness would see too;...eye has no thought (acetanattaa). And then, were consciousness itself to see a visible object, it would see it even behind a wall because of > being independent of sense resistance (appa.tighabaavato)..." A: "Incorrect. Eye consciousness and lets say tactile consciousness ARE different types of consciousness. One does not go into the range of another...Easy to disprove. In the dreams you may not see what is behind walls or other objects... In dreams there can be rational flow of time...So space/time critique doesn't work." Scott: Yes, eye consciousness and tactile consciousness are different types of consciousness. The quote is referring to an 'organ' - the eye - and pointing out that it is eye-conciousness and not the round thing in the skull, that actually sees. The round thing in the skull doesn't see because it is ruupa - it has no consciousness - just meat. As far as your comment on dreams go, I'm sorry but this is totally inadequate as any sort of argument in favour of your view. I've worked day in and day out with the dreams of patients in psychoanalytic psychotherapy, as well as my own in my own analysis, and let me tell you, anything can happen in dreams. You must not be dreaming. Ha ha. I didn't plan that last one - it just came out. Hilarious. Get it? You think its all a dream and I'm saying you must not be dreaming. Oh well. "'When there is the impingement of door and object'..." A: "Thats a perception not something outside of it." Scott: Now you're dreaming! Sincerely, Scott. #78558 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:25 pm Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) scottduncan2 Dear Alex, I meant to write 'Dear Alex' at the beginning when I was done but sent it at the end without actually doing it. I think I may have dreamt about doing it though - you know, the wish to do it? Never mind, I'm not very funny. Any way: "Dear Alex" Sincerely, Scott. #78559 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:47 pm Subject: Vijnanavada [Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3)] scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Thank you for: A: "Good links...Alaya Vijnana in Pali Canon It is generally believed that alaya Vijnana is purely a Mahayana doctrine..." Scott: I read the Lankavatara (sp?) Sutra more than once. While I appreciated it as beautiful literature and a wonderful glimpse into the imagination of some early thinkers, I was not able to connect with it in a way that mattered to me. My apologies. Sincerely, Scott. #78560 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:50 pm Subject: Vijnanavada [Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3)] scottduncan2 Dear Howard, I also appreciate: H: "Thank you very much for those kind words, Scott. I know that your perspective is far from anything discussed in my post, and I appreciate your comments all the more because of that. Really nice of you, my friend. :-)" Scott: You're very welcome, Howard. Sincerely, Scott. #78561 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:07 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,203 Vism.XVII,204 Vism.XVII,205 nichiconn Naamaruupapaccayaasa.laayatanapadavitthaarakathaa 641. Naamaruupapaccayaa sa.laayatanapade- Naama.m khandhattaya.m ruupa.m, bhuutavatthaadika.m mata.m; katekasesa.m ta.m tassa, taadisasseva paccayo. [(v) The Sixfold Base] PPn xvii, 203. As to the clause 'With mentality-materiality as condition, the sixfold base': Three aggregates are 'Mind'; the basis, Primaries, and the rest, are 'Matter': And while all that conditions this A part can represent the rest. {PoP p.675} In the clause "Conditioned by name-and-form the sixfold sense comes to pass": The aggregates are held to be the "name" And "form" the essentials, basis physical, The one remaining (aggregate) of such And such cause condition is. Ya~nheta.m sa.laayatanasseva paccayabhuuta.m naamaruupa.m, tattha naamanti vedanaadikkhandhattaya.m, ruupa.m pana sasantatipariyaapanna.m niyamato cattaari bhuutaani cha vatthuuni jiivitindriyanti eva.m bhuutavatthaadika.m matanti veditabba.m. Ta.m pana naama~nca ruupa~nca naamaruupa~nca naamaruupanti eva.m katekasesa.m cha.t.thaayatana~nca sa.laayatana~nca sa.laayatananti eva.m katekasesasseva sa.laayatanassa paccayoti veditabba.m. Kasmaa? Yasmaa aaruppe naamameva paccayo, ta~nca cha.t.thaayatanasseva na a~n~nassa. "Naamapaccayaa cha.t.thaayatanan"ti (vibha. 322) hi vibha"nge vutta.m. PPn xvii, 204. In the case of the mentality-materiality that is here a condition for the sixfold base, mentality is the three aggregates beginning with feeling, while materiality should be understood as that included in one's own continuity stated thus 'primaries and the rest are "Matter-"', that is to say, the four primaries, six physical bases, and life faculty, [since they are conditioning factors] invariably. But this mentality and this materiality and this mentality-materiality each one representing the rest as 'mentality-materiality' should be understood as a condition for the sixfold base consisting of the sixth base and the sixfold base each one representing the rest as the 'sixfold base'. Why? Because in the immaterial becoming there is only mentality as a condition, and that is a condition only for the sixth base, [namely, the mind base,] not for any other. For it is said in the Vibhanga 'With mentality as condition, the sixth base' (Vbh.179). {PoP p.675} Of the name and form which is the cause of the sixfold sense, name means the three aggregates beginning with feeling; form means the constant four essentials, six physical bases, life-controlling-faculty which are included in one's continuity. Thus are the essentials, physical bases and so on held to be (form). And the final term name-and-form in the series: name, form, and name-and-form is to be understood as the cause of the sixfold sense, which is the final term in the series: Sixth sense and sixfold sense. Why? Because in the formless world name only is the cause of the sixth sense, not of any other. And it has been said in the Vibha"nga {p.144} that the sixth sense is conditioned by name. Tattha siyaa- katha.m paneta.m jaanitabba.m "naamaruupa.m sa.laayatanassa paccayo"ti? Naamaruupabhaave bhaavato. Tassa tassa hi naamassa ruupassa ca bhaave ta.m ta.m aayatana.m hoti, na a~n~nathaa. Saa panassa tabbhaavabhaavitaa paccayanayasmi.m yeva aavibhavissati. Tasmaa, Pa.tisandhiyaa pavatte vaa, hoti ya.m yassa paccayo; yathaa ca paccayo hoti, tathaa neyya.m vibhaavinaa. PPn xvii, 205. Here it may be asked: But how is it to be known that mentality-materiality is a condition for the sixfold base? - Because the latter exists when mentality-materiality exists. For a given base exists when a given kind of mentality and materiality exists not otherwise. But the way in which the one comes to exist when the other does will be explained below in the section dealing with how it is a condition. [563] Therefore, A wise man should contrive to tell Which one conditions which, and how, At rebirth and in life as well; [The explanation follows now.] {PoP p.675} But how - objection might arise - may it be known that name and form is the cause of the sixfold sense? Because the latter exists in the existence of the former. For sense exists when this and that name and form exist, not otherwise. And its existence conditional on the existence {Tabbhaavabhaaritaa. Cf. Compendium of Philosophy, p.187, n.4} of name-and-form will become clear in the causal mode. Therefore - [563] Whatsoever is cause of whatever At moments of procedure and rebirth, The wise should understand accordingly. #78562 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:44 pm Subject: A question for Howard regarding essence. reverendagga... Hi Howard! Thank You for the reply! We can agree to disagree. i have one question though,"i deny essence and i do so as corollary to dependent origination" Just how exactly does one accomplish this? i am curious to know. Thank You! May the Buddha's, Deva and Angel's bless ALL of You! bhikkhu aggacitto/aka reverend aggacitto #78563 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:18 pm Subject: Interesting artist philofillet Hi all I think this guy's work is interesting for reflection.... ...bodily intimation...? http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2007/11/12/arts/20071113_YUE_SLIDESHOW_ index.html Metta, Phil #78564 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:19 pm Subject: Vijnanavada [Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3)] scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Can you find a more accurate reference to the sutta in AN? That given below is not exactly helpful. A: "Lamotte identifies this Ekottaragama passage with the following passage in the Pali Anguttaranikaya (A II, p.131)..." Scott: I'd like to look at the Pali, which I can do with a clearer reference. "Alayarama bhikkhave paja alayarata alayasammudita, sa Tathagatena analaye dhamme desiyamane sussuyati sotam odahati annacittam upattapeti. Tathagatassa bhikkhave arahato sammasambuddhassa patubhava ayam pathamo acchariyo abbhuto dhammo patubhavati." Scott: Walpola notes, "The Pali Commentaries explain this term [alaya] as 'attachment to the five sense-pleasures", and do not go deeper than that. But this also is an aspect of the alaya Vijnana." I can see why the Commentaries explain the term as they do. At least as defined by the PTS PED (influenced by the Theravadin Commentaries no doubt): "Aalaya...1. orig. roosting place, perch, abode settling place, house...2. "hanging on", attachment, desire, clinging, lust...aalayaraama 'devoted to the things to which it clings' " Sincerely, Scott. #78565 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:21 pm Subject: Re: Interesting artist philofillet Hi again Oh, the link doesn't work. That's interesting too. Never mind... Metta, Phil #78566 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:36 pm Subject: Daily Reminders philofillet Hi all I put especially helpful sutta passages (usually) inside the front and back covers. My latest notebook has these three passages: from AN III,2 "His action marks the fool, his action marks the wise person, O monks. Wisdom shines forth in behaviour. By three things the fool can be known; by bad conduct of body, speech and mind. By three things the wise person can be known; by good conduct of body, speech and mind." from MN 61 "ALso, Rahula, while you are doing an action with the body (or mind or speech) you should reflect upon that action thus: 'Does this action that I am doing with body (or mind or speech) lead to the affliction of others, or to the affliction of both? Is it an unwholesome bodily action with painful consequences, with painful results?' (when you know it is such) then you should suspend such a bodily (or mental, or speech) action." from SN 1:10 "They do not sorrow over the past, nor do they hanker for the future. They maintain themselves with what is present - hence their complexion is serene. Through hankering for the future, through sorrowing for the past, fools dry up and wither away, like a green reed cut down." I know that there are deeper understandings of these passages than the understanding I have now, and I know there is a lot of clinging to self (for example, a desire to be a person who has a serene expression) but that's ok. I hope writing these passages down here will condition more attention to them, more earnest striving today and in the days to come. Metta, Phil #78567 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:40 pm Subject: Re: Daily Reminders philofillet Hi again >Does this action > that I am doing with body (or mind or speech) lead to the affliction of > others, or to the affliction of both? Correction - "lead to my affliction, to the affliction of others, or to the afflction of both." Metta, Phil #78568 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:42 pm Subject: Re: Interesting artist philofillet Hi again Maybe this will work. Click the link to the slide show. If it doesn't work, my apologies in advance. Metta, Phil http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/arts/design/13smil.html?hp #78569 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A question for Howard regarding essence. upasaka_howard Hi, Bhante - In a message dated 11/12/2007 9:44:23 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, reverendaggacitto@... writes: Hi Howard! Thank You for the reply! We can agree to disagree. ---------------------------------------- Howard: :-) -------------------------------------- i have one question though,"i deny essence and i do so as corollary to dependent origination" Just how exactly does one accomplish this? i am curious to know. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not sure I follow you, Bhante. Accomplish what? I understand essence to be the nature of an entity, a self-existent thing. But all conditioned dhammas lack own-being and own-nature, for the existence and nature of all conditioned dhammas is dependent and borrowed. As for nibbana, it can neither be said that it exists or does not exist, for in fact nothing can be asserted of what is beyond conditions. ----------------------------------------------------- Thank You! May the Buddha's, Deva and Angel's bless ALL of You! bhikkhu aggacitto/aka reverend aggacitto ============================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream/ (From the Diamond Sutra) #78570 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A question for Howard regarding essence. TGrand458@... In a message dated 11/12/2007 7:44:21 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, reverendaggacitto@... writes: Hi Howard! Thank You for the reply! We can agree to disagree. i have one question though,"i deny essence and i do so as corollary to dependent origination" Just how exactly does one accomplish this? i am curious to know. Thank You! Hi bhikkhu aggacitto/aka reverend aggacitto Not Howard here, but butting in and saying similarly what Howard has said but in a less elegant way... "Essence" could be considered on various levels ... but if considered as -- specific phenomena that have "its own characteristic," then Dependent Origination, by necessity, has to preclude such an outlook. Dependent Origination entails that phenomena are "empty" of "own characteristic." Seeing "own characteristics" (or essence) in phenomena is the act of delusion in progress. Its related to the delusion of seeing "self" in phenomena, but merely parceled out in a more elemental manner. Further... on Dependent Origination:-- Whatever appears, appears as it appears, due to something else. The phenomenal appearance does occur, but it has no essence of its own. Metaphorically... phenomena are essentially hollow echoes of other conditions which are also essentially hollow echoes, etc., etc. How the mind categorizes or differentiates phenomena is just a subjective reference point. TG #78571 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:26 pm Subject: Re: Perfections Corner (35) nichiconn Dear Han, I used to worry if I said something and it would turn out to be wrong later, would the precept be broken? Well, no, not really, it isn't. "The important thing is the intention to deceive". and not to believe everything i believe just because i believe it. [As we read in the Commentary, "he should speak without deception." A righteous person speaks in accordance with the truth, whereas an evil person utters deceptive speech.] a deluded one, etc. under the sway of perversions, intoxicants, lobha... possessed by/of those. demons. i still look for maara. deities, shoten-zenjin... the functions in life that serve to protect buddhism... by extension, those with faith in it/them. but this is the romantic version. anyone can read my mind. to an extent. after you get in so far, that echo? frivolity. i err on that side. only a fool could laugh. burnt offerings, hell, that's me own hide i'll be wailing. yes, good to maintain noble silence but I haven't achieved that yet. silence, sometimes, nobility, not a chance! I might like to go back and read Chalmers "Tathaagata", Art. XII, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland, 1898. - Also, that same issue: Mrs RD "On the Will in Buddhism". Might be interesting? peace, connie #78572 From: han tun Date: Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (35) hantun1 Dear Connie, To me, what you have written appeared to be like short-hand notes. Some I understand, some I do not. So, I will pick up just one point from your message. [I used to worry if I said something and it would turn out to be wrong later, would the precept be broken? Well, no, not really, it isn't. "The important thing is the intention to deceive".] Yes, the important thing is the intention to deceive. If you have no intention to deceive others you will not be breaking the precept. Here, I would like to quote The Noble Eightfold Path, by Bhikkhu Bodhi http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/waytoend.html#ch4 Referring to what Buddha said in AN 10.176, Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote: “This statement of the Buddha discloses both the negative and the positive sides to the precept. The negative side is abstaining from lying, the positive side speaking the truth. The determinative factor behind the transgression is the intention to deceive. If one speaks something false believing it to be true, there is no breach of the precept as the intention to deceive is absent.” In saying “The determinative factor behind the transgression is the intention to deceive” Bhikkhu Bodhi’s statement exactly reflects your statement of "The important thing is the intention to deceive". So if there is no intention to deceive, there will not be breaking of the precept. With metta and respect, Han #78573 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (35) dcwijeratna Dear Tep, I thought the whole thing was clear. Moreover, it is the PTS translation. When we communicate in English we normally use PTS translations. If somebody thinks that is not accurate, he is free to do do. And that is ok. Any way, here is Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation: Monks, as the Tathaagata speaks, so he acts; as he acts, so he speaks. Therefore he is called the Tathaagata. I don't see any difference between the two translations. To act or to do are essentially the same. Therefore is same as 'That is why'. Now I give my own thoughts about it. 1. This is a definition of Tathaagata. "Therefore, he is called Tathaagata." 2. This definition is not applicable to any other being who is not an arahant. 3. Tatthaagata is the term the Buddha used to refer to himself. So traditionally, it was never used to refer to discuss any other being. 4. Thathaagata is a compound tatha and something derived from gacchati or aagacchati. 5. In the preBuddistic context, tatha meant some thing like 'that' or 'there'beyond 'this'. No need to assume that there 'is' something beyond. It only really expresses the idea "Tatha" doesn't belong to this (world). [Very difficult to talk of these things, Tep, see whether you can get the idea I am trying to express. 6. Now I am not a pali scholar. My exposure to Pali is very limited. 7. The Pali expression is "Yathavaadii tathaakaari... 9 You will note that both these words are nouns. So really there is no verb in that expression. In English we have similar constructions. He is a man. Two nouns connected by 'is'. In Pali the same thing is done. Pali is a middle indic language, supposed to be derived from the Indo-Aryan family of languages. 10. So we can substitute 'hoti' as the verb. 11. In Pali the relative has what is called correlative construction. Two clauses are combined by something like 'that which'. 12. vaadii is a speaker (of a doctrine, usually) and kaarii is a doer (I am not sure actor would fit--I prefer doer) 13. Yathaa: as; like; in relation to; according to; in whatever way; just as. Tathaa: thus; so; in that way; likewise. 14. So "whatever speaker, in that way doer. 15. The idea conveyed is doing according to speech and speech according to doing. 16. I hope this clarifies Horner's translation and also Bhikkhu Bodhi's. We human being see the world "only" through "I" or with "I" as the subject. D. G. D. C. Wijeratna P. S. Understanding Dhamma is not easy. I will send a Han the full translation of the sutta. It is going to take a little time. (Horner's translation). If I translate it it will take a long time. #78574 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:13 am Subject: dear modsquad nichiconn a new blurb to add to the dsg homepage: << That controversies have raged only too often over the veriest trifles, is the first and irresistible impression that the reading of these records brings with it. But strictness in details is, in itself, no departure from the spirit of the ancient and pure Buddhism. The "Discipline" of the Order embodies countless rules on the smaller decencies of life, which are ascribed to the watchful wisdom of The Master himself. Here of course the individual point of view of the author has to be taken into account, besides his monastic standing. Heresy, for Pa~n~nasaami, means, before all, a falling away from the ancient Discipline; the controversies he records as noteworthy turn, for the most part, not on philosophical subtleties but on daily life, on the precepts of the Vinaya rather than on the questionings of the Kathavathu. >> mabel bode - "Saasanavamsa", 1897 PTSJ this: << Pa~n~nasaami's history is a purely ecclesiastical piece of work. Kings are judged, as a rule, according to their "acts of merit" - the building of cetiyas and vihaaras and the supporting of the Samgha - with a certain calm detachment, that is able to separate their names from any other associations, and to measure their virtue and importance by a measure of its own. >> sounds like "say the king is a dhamma". 'as a rule', say 'by definition'... here, is a joke that depends very much on delivery: danarasa. Most people with beads like mine would know (queen!) Diana Ross has them, too. Are they buddhist? but i digress... the same way the great supreme artist is known, by name, characteristics, function, manifestation, proximate cause, so, ultimately, are dhammas. Not her point here, of course, but it works for me. Dunno about this tho: << The "science of words" is held to be vital to the cause of Truth, and the writing of grammatical treatises rises to the height of a religious duty. >> To my dying day she would doom me to religious failure. Smite that! interesting footnote, starting from where it quotes from p.331 Hardy's "Eastern Monachism (1850)": << "About fifty years ago a class of metaphysicians arose in Ava called Paramats, who respect only the Abhidhamma and reject the other books that the Buddhists consider as sacred, saying that they are only a compilation of fables. The founder of the sect, Kosan, with about fifty of his followers, was put to death by order of the king". At least one connecting link may be pointed out here between this later school and the sect denounced by Pa~n~nasaami - the Saasanavamsa mentions that Gunabhilamkara, the 1st leader of the Edamsikas, "taught his pupils the Abhiddhama". Heresies of doctrine & practice were no doubt intermingled, all along, though we hear little of the former in our history. It is possible that Chrisitianity, 1st introduced into Upper Burma in the 18th c., may be meant (see Bird's Wanderings in Burma, p88). >> peace, connie #78575 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (35) dcwijeratna Dear Han, This is regarding your discussion on the subject of "Mussavvadda". It was interesting and I also thought about it. An idea occurred to me. I agree that it is the intention that matters. But you may be guilty of samphappalaapa--meaningless talk or frivoulous words. It is unwholesome. So I think one must be careful when talking not to use words which are not true. Well, when talking about the future or anything else, if you use some words like-might or may or I think or in my opinion or something like that may be you can avoid breaking the precept. I'll send you the full translation of that soon. It is fairly long. So forgive for the delay. With respect, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #78576 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] dear modsquad sarahprocter... Hi Connie, --- L G SAGE wrote: > > a new blurb to add to the dsg homepage: ... S: Er, thx for the suggested modifications... You don't think folk might suggest we rename as the TSG (Trifle Study Group), do you? Next you'll be suggesting some celestial music to accompany it, lol. And on the question of being ascribed to the Master, a few notes from Dhammapaala's commentary to the Netti (the same commentary where all those deceiving dhammas are mentioned which we all appreciate!!): " 'How can it be known that the "Guide-Treatise" (S: Netti) is what was uttered by a principal disciple and approved by the Buddha? (it can be answered that it is) because it is a text (foot-note: 'Meaning presumably that is accorded the status of a canonical text'..); for there is no other criterion beyond a text, and any text not in contradiction (when examined) under the four Principal Appeals to Authority is the criterion. And the "Guide-Treatise" has, like the "Disclosure of the Pitakas" (Petakopadesa), come down (to us) by way of the unimpeachable succession of teachers.........And anyway why this investigation about a source, sincer there is no one else to whom to ascribe it except the Elder (S: Maha Kaccayana)? What needs investigating here is only the meaning (in order to see) that it does not conflict with the texts...." So lets study dhammas and not forget that any truths about them are the Buddha's word. Metta, Sarah > << That controversies have raged only too often over the veriest > trifles, is the first and irresistible impression that the reading of > these records brings with it. But strictness in details is, in itself, > no departure from the spirit of the ancient and pure Buddhism. The > "Discipline" of the Order embodies countless rules on the smaller > decencies of life, which are ascribed to the watchful wisdom of The > Master himself. <...> #78577 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 13, 2007 2:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some well deserved questions/Further conciderations sarahprocter... Dear Ven Aggacitto (Howard, Ven Dhammanando & all), --- reverendaggacitto wrote: > No Angels?Please refer to the Dhp.Ch.26 verse#420 for a further > look on this matter.Some would translate it as gandhabba, > however as a gandhabba is discussed as a condition for REBIRTH in > M.N.sutta #38 that interpretation would clearly be in error as regards > the context of Dhp.CH.26 verse#420.This is why the the translation is > usually "angels". ... S: Yes, this is a different meaning of gandhabba, referring to a class of celestial beings. From Buddhadatta's dictionary under gandhabba: 1. a musician; heavenly musician belonging to the demigods; 2. a being ready to take a new existence. (hence the recent references to celestial music by Connie and myself!) As for Out of Body Experiences, Astral travel, Near Death experiences and so on, I wouldn't confuse these with the abhi~n~naas, the 'psychic' or supernormal knowledges we read about in the suttas, such as the one you mention. These are magical powers (iddhi-vidha), divine ear (dibba-sota), penetration of the minds of others (ceto-pariya-~naa.na), remembrance of former existences (pubbenivaasaanussati), divine eye (dibba-cakkhu) or the supramundane one, extinction of all cankers (aasavakkhaya). These abhi~n~naas are only attainable through the attainment of the highest jhanas (with extraordinary wisdom and samaadhi) and the last only through the attainment of arahantship. I recently came across a scientific article in the newspaper on OOBE, N-D experiences and so on. I only skimmed it, but the gist was that all the experiences reported by people who've had OOBE etc, can now be perfectly duplicated in the laboratory through causing some small part of the brain to mal-function or be over-stimulated (I forget which). Hardly the great wisdom of the Buddha, his disciples and other great jhana attainers at that time. Metta, Sarah ========= #78578 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 13, 2007 2:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Corner (35) sarahprocter... Dear Han, --- han tun wrote: > According to U Shwe Aung, a Burmese scholar, a > bodhisatta, when his paramis are not yet fully > developed, may do some unwholesome activities, but he > never speaks with deception or never tells lies. ... S: This is why we read (in the Jatakas and elswhere) that while as a Bodhisatta, the other precepts were breached, never did he tell a lie or speak with deception, as U Shwe Aung says. Metta, Sarah ========= #78579 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 13, 2007 2:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: India 1. sarahprocter... Dear Shiau Min, Thank you for joining and giving an introduction! Thank you for telling us about how you had read and printed out many of Nina's & Sujin's materials already. --- mudita98 wrote: > "All dhamma are anattaa" , that's what the most important teaching > of the Buddha , and the different between Buddha teaching and the > other religon , they must have a "attaa", if not they cannot > understand a single thing! But the anattaa right view must built up > by understanding the Paticcasamuppada and pacaya . That's the little > I understand . Please correct me if I am not right. Thanks a lot . ... S: You already show a lot of appreciation of anatta. I agree with you that without any understanding of conditions, it's impossible to appreciate that there really isn't any atta in charge. Please join in any of the threads here anytime and encourage us all with your studies and keen interest! .... > I collected a lot of kusala citta when I visted the holy places > which doing chanting , meditation, pay respect and dhamma discussion > and so on. ... S: Were the others in your group also friends from Sabah? Do they also have an interest in Abhidhamma and discussion? Have you always had an interest in the Buddha's teachings? You may also like to try listening to some of the edited recorded discussions with A.Sujin. If you want to try some, go to: www.dhammastudygroup.org and scroll down past the archived posts to the audio section. Hope to hear more from you, Shiau Min. Metta, Sarah ====== #78580 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 13, 2007 2:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] to Han.Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (7) nilovg Dear Han, I understand you. No need to apologize for not pursuing a point. It is not necessary to explain the reasons for not continuing with a thread. Nina. Op 13-nov-2007, om 0:06 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Why can I not apply one text for all situations if > that text is good? For example, I am applying > Anattalakkhana sutta for all situations of anatta. > I am applying Dhamma-cakkappavattana sutta for all > situations of Four Noble Truths and Noble Eightfold > Path. I am applying Mahaasatipatthaana sutta for all > situations of satipatthaana. > > Now, if I had given that reason that time, you might > come up with why a particular sutta cannot be applied > for all situations giving your own reasons. Then, I > will argue back, and there might be unpleasantness > which might spoil the profitable and comfortable > atmosphere which we have established between us. > That’s why I cut short my conversation. > > Anyhow, now that you know the reason, please forgive > me #78581 From: han tun Date: Tue Nov 13, 2007 3:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (35) hantun1 Dear DC, Thank you very much for your warning about samphappalaapa, and your very good tip of how to avoid breaking the precept by using some appropriate words. I also thank you in advance for the full translation of the sutta. Please take your own time. No hurry. Respectfully, Han #78582 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 13, 2007 3:07 am Subject: Re: Vijnanavada [Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3)] nilovg Hi Howard, I was just going to comment on your well written post where you clearly explain about other schools. I join Scott. Nina. Op 13-nov-2007, om 1:54 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > "There is more than one perspective expressed within subschools of > the Vijnanavada School of Mahayana, some of which can be harmonized > with Sutta teachings (it seems to me)..." > > Scott: What an erudite summary. Very nice. I dug it. #78583 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 11:59 pm Subject: Re: Vijnanavada [Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3)] upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 11/13/2007 6:08:13 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, I was just going to comment on your well written post where you clearly explain about other schools. I join Scott. Nina. ============================ Thanks! :-) With metta, Howard #78584 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:55 am Subject: For Sarah Abbott RE:Angels and O.O.B.E. reverendagga... Hi Sarah Thank You so mutch for your post. From what i know,the word Gandhabba comes from the classical Hindu cosmology of Gandharb meaning exactly the same thing. When the context is unclear conforming to either definition i and others prefer "angels"as defined by the Merriam Websters Dictionary to be a better choice. Angel:noun;1a A spiritual being superior to humans in power and intelligence... 2 An attendant spirit or guardian. The Pali canon describes others that could fit that discription as well including, Mara's retinue (the assembly of such being mentioned in "The "Lion's Roar" sutta of the M.N.) The gods of the thirty three etc.etc. i believe this is why it is usually translated in the Dhp.Ch.26 verse#420 as "angels" and given the above and afore mentioned rightly so.(Acharya Buddharakkhita translation etc.) Concerning what they may or may not be able to reproduce in a lab, if this is true,then Ven.Gotama and his disciples were able to accomplish something more than 3,000 years ago that scientists today are just now claiming to be able to reproduce in a lab! i certainly do not believe that this in any way qualifies it to be belittled. Never the less what is being described in the Pali Canon EXACTLY matches the description of what is termed"ASTRAL PROJECTION" or O.O.B.E. If they are now able to reproduce this in a lab i find this irrelevent to the comparison. May the Buddha's, Deva and Angel's bless ALL of you! bhikkhu aggacitto/aka reverend aggacitto #78585 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Tue Nov 13, 2007 6:03 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (70) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 14 13. Viisatinipaato 5. Subhaakammaaradhiitutheriigaathaava.n.nanaa verse: 359. "Ummaadanaa ullapanaa, kaamaa cittappamaathino; sattaana.m sa.mkilesaaya, khippa.m maarena o.d.dita.m. 357. Sensual pleasures are maddening, deceiving, agitating the mind, a net spread out by Maara for the defilement of creatures. txt: Ummaadanaati vipari.naamadhammaana.m viyogavasena sokummaadakaraa, va.d.dhiyaa vaa uparuuparimadaavahaa. Ullapanaati "aho sukha.m aho sukhan"ti uddha.m uddha.m lapaapanakaa. "Ullolanaa"tipi paa.tho, bhattapi.n.danimitta.m na"ngu.t.tha.m ullolento sunakho viya aamisahetu satte uparuuparilaalanaa, paraabhavaava~n~naatapaapanakaati attho. 357. Maddening (ummaadanaa) means: being the cause of the madness of grief (sok'-ummaada-karaa) because of separation from phenomena that change, or through the increase of the production of greater and greater madness (uparuupari-madaavahaa). Deceiving (ullapanaa) means: causing [people] to say more and more, "Oh, the happiness! Oh, the happiness!" There is also the reading ullolanaa ("waiting in expectation of something"). Because of the lures [of the world], beings dally more and more, like a dog wagging (ullolento) its tail to get scraps of food; [but] the result is being despised and disgraced. That is the meaning. txt: Cittappamaathinoti pari.laahuppaadanaadinaa sampati aayati~nca cittassa pamathanasiilaa. "Cittappamaddino"ti vaa paa.tho, so evattho. Ye pana "cittappamaadino"ti vadanti, tesa.m cittassa pamaadaavahaati attho. Sa.mkilesaayaati vibaadhanaaya upataapanaaya vaa. Khippa.m maarena o.d.ditanti kaamaa naamete maarena o.d.dita.m kuminanti da.t.thabbaa sattaana.m anatthaavahanato. Agitating the mind (citta-ppamaathino) means: having the characterist of agitation of the mind (cittassa pamathana-sila) both now and in the future through producing a burning fever, etc. There is also the reading citta-ppamaddino ("agitating the mind"). For those who read thus, the meaning is: now whoever says "agitating the mind (citta-ppamaadino)," it produces mental negligence (citassa pamaadaavahaa) in them. For the defilements means: for the harming or for the tormenting. verse: 360. "Anantaadiinavaa kaamaa, bahudukkhaa mahaavisaa; appassaadaa ra.nakaraa, sukkapakkhavisosanaa. 358. Sensual pleasures have endless perils; they have much pain, they are great poisons; they give little enjoyment; they produce desire, drying up the virtuous party. txt: Anantaadiinavaati "lobhana.m madana~ncetan"ti-aadinaa, "idha siitassa purakkhato u.nhassa purakkhato"ti-aadinaa (ma. ni. 1.167) ca dukkhakkhandhasuttaadiisu vuttanayena apariyantaadiinavaa bahudosaa. Bahudukkhaati aapaayikaadibahuvidhadukkhaanubandhaa. Mahaavisaati ka.tukaasayhaphalataaya halaahalaadimahaavisasadisaa Appassaadaati satthadhaaraagatamadhubindu viya parittassaadaa. Ra.nakaraati saaraagaadisa.mva.d.dhakaa. Sukkapakkhavisosanaati sattaana.m anavajjako.t.thaasassa vinaasakaa. 358. [Sensual pleasures] have endless perils means: "This is being greedy, and [it is] intoxication," etc. They have many faults and endless dangers as described in the Discourse on the Mass of Suffering*, and so on: "Here, he is exposed to cold; he is exposed to heat," etc.** They have much pain (bahu-dukkhaa) means: they have the continual pain that belongs to a state of misery, etc. (aapaayikaadi-bahu-vidha-dukkhaanubandhaa). Great poisons (mahaa-visaa) means: because they are the result of harsh, intolerable things, they are like great poisons that are dire, etc. (halaahalaadi-mahaa-visam-sadisaa). They give little enjoyment (app'-assaadaa) means: they give limited enjoyment (paritt'-assaadaa) like a drop of honey on a razor's edge. They produce desire means: they increase passion, etc. Drying up the virtuous party means: causing the destruction of the irreproachable group of beings. * M n*13 ** M I 185 (MLDB 180) === to be continued, connie #78586 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Nov 13, 2007 6:14 am Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) philofillet Hi Jon, Robert and all > As I read the sutta, it means in effect that a follower of the teachings > who: > (a) is already adept at both mindfulness of in-&-out breathing > (anapanasati, a form of samatha) and insight (vipassana), I'm afraid I'll be pointing this out a lot, but according to Vism, at least, the above is incorrect. The "pursued and developed" must start somewhere, and indeed, in the Samadhi section of Vism, there is a reference to meditation techniques recommended to "the clansman who is a beginner." A "beginner" cannot already be adept. Also, there is a reference in Vism to the ringing of a gong. At first, the sound of the gong is loud and clear, than becomes more subtle. Thus it is with the breath. The AS contention that the breath is a difficult meditation subject to master is true. But to say there is no value for a beginner in seeking to pursue it is refuted by a study of the Samadhi section of Vism. > (b) has attained, or has the potential to attain, jhana with in-&- out > breathing as object, and Here your point is more easily defensible, because there are indeed 10 impediments to the meditation laid out in Vism, such things as family ties and various social concerns, and illnesses and I forget what else. (This is the answer to the homework question I posed the other day.) I think AS and her students would be better off using these clearly stated 10 impediments when trying (with good intent, of course) to discourage meditators from unrealistic expectations because saying that they must already be adept to begin with is odd, I think. As is saying there must be detachment from the beginning, or insight into not-self from the beginning. These cannot be supported by the texts, as far as I know. (The oft posted "Right View is the foreunner of all" sutta doesn't do this, because as we know it is the mundane right view - belief in the principle of kamma - that the Buddha stressed more often.) Thanks for letting me pop in, and out again. I encourage all students of AS to study the Samadhi section of Vism as well as the Understanding section which follows it. Metta, Phil #78587 From: "Robert" Date: Tue Nov 13, 2007 6:50 am Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) avalo1968 Hello Phil, Thanks for your comments. They were very helpful. Robert A. #78588 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:18 am Subject: Re: sound. [dsg] Realities and Concepts (1) dcwijeratna Hi Mike, There is some interesting information about nettippakar.na in Hinuber. It is classified under paracanonical texts and here is what it says about it: "The text, it seems, was composed with the purpose of systematically developing methods fro an interpretation of the Tipi.taka. Thus it may be a manual for commentators, although the possible influence of Nett on the composition of A.t.thakathaa has not been sufficiently investigated. D. G. D. C. Wijeratna Oskar Von Hinuber, A Handbook of Pali Literature, 77-80 #78589 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:27 am Subject: Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, Ch 3, no 1. nilovg Dear friends, Chapter 3 Clinging to Concepts Citta, consciousness, experiences something, it experiences an object. Acharn Sujin reminded us many times during our journey that each citta experiences an object. Citta could not arise if there were no object. The object is one of the conditions for the arising of citta. Without citta, colour, sound and the other sense objects could not appear. We should apply what the Abhidhamma teaches about citta and object to this moment of our daily life. We heard Acharn Sujin say many times that visible object appears now, and that it could not appear if there were no seeing that experiences it. We listen to the Dhamma and we read the texts about the objects experienced through the six doorways, but do we really consider this deeply and apply it to this very moment? Theoretical knowledge, pariyatti, is a foundation for the understanding of the level of patipatti, practice, that is direct understanding of realities appearing one at a time through the six doorways. Acharn Sujin spoke during our journey about seeing, hearing, the other sense-cognitions and the sense objects time and again, but we found this not monotonous. It is a vivid reminder to begin to investigate those dhammas as they appear in daily life. In this way all we hear and read in the Suttas can become more meaningful, we can come to see that everything that appears is dhamma. Thus, studying dhamma, reality, is studying with mindfulness of what appears at this very moment. The purpose of our study should be understanding of our life at this moment. This is a new approach to life, to the world. We are used to being infatuated with the world of people and all the things around us without understanding what is really there: nåma and rúpa that arise because of their appropriate conditions and then fall away immediately. When we perceive people there are in reality different moments of citta: seeing is different from thinking of the meaning of what we see. When we perceive a person or a thing, we pay attention to a mental image of a whole, and we are absorbed in all the details of what is seen. This happens during all our activities in daily life when we, for example, add sugar and milk to our coffee, use knife and fork when we are eating, when we are reading or walking. A mental image of a whole is not a reality, a dhamma, it is a concept, paññatti. The word concept, in Påli paññatti, has different meanings: it is a name or term that conveys a meaning as well as the idea it makes known. Thus, it makes known and also, it is what has been made known. Names can denote persons or things that are not realities, or they can denote realities, such as different nåmas and rúpas. When we have a notion of a “whole”, such as a person or thing, we are thinking of an idea, a concept, not a reality, not a nåma or rúpa. ******** Nina. #78590 From: Dieter Möller Date: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: KenH's Thoughts on Self and No Self # 34782 moellerdieter , Hi Dieter (KenH), - Incredible, incredible, Dieter, the way you used only few words to adequately answer some of the difficult Dhamma questions. Hi Tep, thanks for this nice feedback... good refreshment ....;-) with Metta Dieter #78591 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Daily Reminders dcwijeratna Dear Phil, You wrote: "I know that there are deeper understandings of these passages than the understanding I have now, and I know there is a lot of clinging to self (for example, a desire to be a person who has a serene expression) but that's ok." I hope writing these passages down here will condition more attention to them, more earnest striving today and in the days to come. I have learnt about clinging differently. Here is it for whatever it is worth. "If there is a lot of clinging to self" then there is clinging, then that is not ok. Because that is ta.nhaa. The basic antidote for this is daana. Daana is the act of giving. For that you give up your attachment to it. It arises becase of karu.naa (mainly). Then what is in your mind is compassion. But if you give something on a loan, then it is not daana. When you give it develops "generosity" in your mind. That in pali is caaga. And one name for Nibbaan is caga (adjective really). When you give up everything like that, whatever you think of as I, me or mine. Then you are arhant. When you wrote those beautiful words of the Buddha, you did it out of compassion (mettaa--friendliness), was there any clinging, I think not. That is the way I think about it." There is a nice collection of articles on Daana in at Access-to-insight. There is one by Lily de Silva. I forget the exact name. May be giving in the Pali Canon. You might find what I have said is an echo of the ideas expressed there. With friendliness, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #78592 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: KenH's Thoughts on Self and No Self dcwijeratna Dear Tep, Why 'agreed mostly'? Mettaa, DC D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #78593 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:24 am Subject: Re: sound. [dsg] Realities and Concepts (1) dcwijeratna Dear Howard, I wrote this: ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- -------- Here is some thing for you to have a good laugh: "When I use a word," Humpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less." --Lewis Caroll, Through the Looking Glass ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - because I thought most of our "discussions" are like this. I am also retired now being an electrical power engineer for 37 years. My hobby is computing. So may be we can talk a little bit of both. Have you seen anything about the work of a group in California investigating Buddhist teaching through the process approach of Whitehead? Kind regards, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #78594 From: Dieter Möller Date: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) moellerdieter Hi Ken O (Ken H, Tep), I am sorry for my late reply .. you may have recognised that the issue of anatta is as well discussed with Ken H and Tep, though by a different beginning , your comments appreciated... you wrote: KO: Anatta is not something that only a law when one becomes an Arahant. It is law discover by Buddha and this is the law even before Buddha arise. It is a law even one is a wordlings, that is what dependent orignation is about. When this arise, that arise. Just like when pain arise in the body after piercing a thorn, pain arise because of causes and conditions. If pain is not anatta, we would have said, we do not wish to feel pain. We cannot, we would still feel bodily pain. anatta simply means, conditons arise without a self. this is the law. D: the point I wanted to make is that the wisdom/state of anatta (without a remaining of Self/I) is only realized at Arahant level, before there is still attachment , ignorance /avijja still conditioning the kamma force /volition. The delusion /moha is still working (tanha). D.O. describes the process how the suffering comes into being for the ignorant person , the delusion of self ' running through the chain' .. Unlike Anicca and Dukkha , which are obvious at closer look , Anatta is something to be realised as a truth....before the law is ' veiled '.. K.O.: No one said this teaching is not accepted, we are saying right understanding is important when Buddha say these. Understanding is the forerunner. D: yes but there 2 kinds of (right) understanding, the mundane and the supramundane one. ...the latter starting with the Streamenterer K.O ( D.: The sequence of path elements 3,4,5 for sila , 6,7,8 for samadhi and 1,2 for panna is the norm. ) When it was said would it mean they can purposedly force the mind to a higher degree of wisdom? D: the term of force does not fit .. but growing understanding by learning, studying, penetration .. so Panna may replace Avijja by an multitude of insights. KO: All dhamma is anatta as declared by Buddha, isn't Buddha contradict himself by asking the monk to move the self where in the first place, there isn't any. When this was said, it was meant to arouse viriya and in investigation of dhamma (panna) as they are pre-dominance conditoning factor and faculties conditioning as well as enlighement factors. What is arouse, it not self, they are just cetasikas, viriya and panna D: the Buddha requested to see for oneself whether anything can be found within the whole existence (the 5 khandas) that can be called self , so coming to the insight of anatta , and detach, giving up the idea/delusion of self : that I am , that is mine, that I want to be.. with Metta Dieter #78595 From: Elaine Date: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: KenH's Thoughts on Self and No Self shennieca Hi DC, Tep, all, --- DC: Why 'agreed mostly'? Elaine: I was also thinking the same thing and was waiting for Tep to add more to it. :-)) :D With mettaa, Elaine --------------------- #78596 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:37 am Subject: [dsg] Re: KenH's Thoughts on Self and No Self buddhistmedi... Hi DC and Elaine, - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Elaine wrote: > > Hi DC, Tep, all, > --- > DC: Why 'agreed mostly'? > > Elaine: I was also thinking the same thing and was waiting for Tep to add more to it. :-)) :D > > With mettaa, > Elaine > --------------------- T: Both of you asked me why I agreed "mostly" with DC in the following dialogue: > DC: > Are you referring to micchaadi.t.thi when you talk about wrong-view. T: Yes. .......... > DC: If so, here is my understanding. > > Anything that is not sammaad.t.thi is is is micchaadi.t.thi. > > That is the 'greatest evil' because then their is no freedom from bondage. Noble Eightfold Path is the only path. And starts with Sammaadi.t.thi. > T: Agreed mostly. ....................... Tep: Because I have two reasons. 1. Anything that is not 'samma-ditthi' may or may not be 100% 'miccha- ditthi'. My Buddhist views now are not samma-ditthi yet. But I wouldn't think of myself as a person with miccha-ditthi. In the same token one can say 'not white' is not necessarily black. 2. Even deeds that are not the 'greatest evil' can be bad enough to result in "no freedom from bondage". Do you mostly agree with the two reasons above? ;-)) Tep === #78597 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:43 am Subject: Re: sound. [dsg] Realities and Concepts (1) upasaka_howard Hi, DC - In a message dated 11/13/2007 12:24:59 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, dcwijeratna@... writes: Dear Howard, I wrote this: ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- -------- Here is some thing for you to have a good laugh: "When I use a word," Humpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less." --Lewis Caroll, Through the Looking Glass ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - because I thought most of our "discussions" are like this. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: For sure! ;-)) Actually, I think that many seeming "philosophical" differences would disappear were people to be using language the same way. But, hey, then we'd have to find something else to cling to! LOL! --------------------------------------------------------- I am also retired now being an electrical power engineer for 37 years. My hobby is computing. So may be we can talk a little bit of both. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Perhaps, though I was more of a "pure" mathematician than an applied guy. ------------------------------------------------------ Have you seen anything about the work of a group in California investigating Buddhist teaching through the process approach of Whitehead? ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, I haven't, though I know that many folks liken the two. -------------------------------------------------- Kind regards, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna ========================== With metta, Howard #78598 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:46 am Subject: Vijnanavada [Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3)] truth_aerator Dear Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Thank you for: > > A: "Good links...Alaya Vijnana in Pali Canon It is generally believed > that alaya Vijnana is purely a Mahayana doctrine..." > > Scott: I read the Lankavatara (sp?) Sutra more than once. While I > appreciated it as beautiful literature and a wonderful glimpse into > the imagination of some early thinkers, I was not able to connect with > it in a way that mattered to me. My apologies. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > Let me be absolutely clear on this. I DO NO SUBSCRIBE TO MAHAYANA. Even though some of their concepts are further explanations of what Buddha has said in the Pali Suttas - they (mahayana) are clearly later work and in many cases appear to be mistaken. Pali Suttas are the work of the Enlightened One, unlike the scholastic traditions which crept it. Lots of Metta, Alex #78599 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:49 am Subject: Vijnanavada [Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3)] truth_aerator Dear Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Can you find a more accurate reference to the sutta in AN? That given > below is not exactly helpful. > > Sorry Scott, I don't know. The best idea would be to go to online database of Pali Suttas and type that paragraph or word and find all suttas it is mentioned in. P.S. Could alaya be something like "bhavanga - citta" of Abhidhamma? Lots of Metta, Alex